


9* 





0 





p -J 



5> <k • 






0 





o- 



;* V** .v 



;*. . • 



3^ 




* -0? ^ • 



AO, 








TO 



UNITARIANS 



OCCASIONED BY THE SERMON 



OF THE REVEREND WILLIAM E. CHANNING 



AT THE ORDINATION OF THE 



REV. J. SPARKS. 



/ 
V 

BY LEONARD WOODS, D.D. 

abbot Professor of christian theology in the theol. 
seminary, andover. 



ANDOVER : 



PUBLISHED BY FLAGG AND GOULD, 



DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO WIT : 

District Clerk'' s Office. 
Be it remembered, that on the twenty eighth day of March, A.d. 1820, and in 
the forty fourth year of the independence of the United States of America, Flagg 
& Gould of the said district, have deposited in this office the title of a book, 
the right whereof they claim as proprietors, in the words following, viz " Let- 
ters to Unitarians occasioned by the Sermon of the Rev. William E. Channing 
at the ordination of the Rev. J. Sparks. By Leonard Woods, d.d. Abbot Pro- 
fessor of Christian Theology in the Theol. Sern. Andover. — In conformity to the 
act of the congress of the United States of America, entitled " An Act for the 
encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts and books, 
to the authors and proprietors of such copies during the times therein mention- 
ed i 11 and also to an Aet entitled, " An act supplementary to an Act, entitled, 
An Act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts 
and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies during the limes there- 
in mentioned ; and extending the benefits thereof to the arts of designing, en- 
graving and etching historical, and other prints." 

Jno W Dwis \ Clerk of the District 
' \ of Massachusetts^ 



CONTENTS, 



LETTER I 

Introductory remarks ; 3 — 7 

LETTER II. 

The propriety of a creed. — The right of declaring our 
own opinions. — This right infringed. — Opinions rep- 
resented as peculiar to Unitarians, which belong to the 
Orthodox; — particularly as to God's unity, and moral 
perfection . . . * . * . . 8 — 17 

LETTER HI. 

Views of the Orthodox respecting the character and gov- 
ernment of God. — His paternal character illustrated 18 — 24 

LETTER IV. 

The proof that the Orthodox deny the moral perfection 
of God, considered. — Native character of man. — Pro- 
per mode of reasoning on this subject « . . 24 — 30 

LETTER V. 

The doctrine of man's depravity stated, and proved. — Ar- 
gument from the Old Testament ; — confirmed by Paul's 
reasoning, Rom. Hi. — The principle involved in the 
reasoning 31 — 41 

LETTER VI. 

Another argument from the Old Testament, Jer. xvi. 9, in 
proof of man's depravity. — Arguments from the New 



IV 



Testament, John ni. 1 — 7. Rom. v. 12. — Imputation 
considered. Ephes. ii. 3. — Argument from the call to 
repent. — Moral character of God and human depravity 
not inconsistent ....... 41 — 5£ 

LETTER VII. 

The doctrine of Election. — Preliminary remarks. — Proof 
of the doctrine, from John xvii, Ephes. i. 3 — 11, Rom. 
ix. 11— 24, &c 52—62 

LETTER V1U. 

Misrepresentations of the doctrine of Election, and the 

common objections against it, considered . . 63 — 83 

LETTER IX. 

Atonement. Misrepresentations. Metaphorical lan- 
guage employed by the Orthodox, and by the Scrip- 
tures. — Cautions to be observed respecting the use 
of metaphorical language. — Two classes of texts re- 
specting forgiveness. — The nature and design of the 
atonement. — Objection as to the value of Christ's 
sufferings, considered ..... 83 — 106 

LETTER X. 

The doctrine of divine influence illustrated, and guard- 
ed against misstatements and objections . . 106—120 

LETTER XI. 

Additional remarks on representations in the Sermon.— 
Object of Christ's mission. — Nature of holiness.— 
Principle of moral government . . . . 120 — 132 

LETTER XII. 

Practical influence of the two systems, generally, and 
particularly. — Love to God. — Gratitude to God.— 



Love to Christ. — Faith in Christ. — Dread of sin, and 
care to obey the divine precepts.— Reverence for 
the Bible. — Benevolent action, particularly the 
spread of the Gospel.— Closing remarks . t 132 — 160 



ERRATA, 

Page 12, line 2 from bottom, read conduct. 

15, 1, Mathers. 

25, 13, could, for would; 

36, 1 5, whatsoever. 
106, read, Letter X. P. 120, Letter XL 
132, .Letter XII 



/ 



LETTER I. 



My respected friends, 

It has been the general sentiment of those, who are 
denominated Unitarians in this country, that religious 
controversy is undesirable, and of dangerous tendency; 
and that it is the duty of Christians of different parties 
to look with candor on each other's opinions, and not 
to magnify, beyond necessity^ the points of difference. 
To this sentiment of yours respecting the danger of con- 
troversy, and the importance of candor and forbearance, 
I cordially agree. I regard it, as one of the great ends, 
which remains to be achieved by the influence of the 
christian religion, that all bitterness and strife should 
be banished from the world, and the spirit of love and 
peace universally prevail. With a view to this momen- 
tous end, I have made it my care, to guard, as far as 
possible, against introducing any thing disputatious into 
the pulpit, — especially on an occasion of so much inter- 
est, and so much tender emotion, as that of ordaining a 
Christian Minister. By these views I have actually 
governed myself for many years. I admit, indeed, the 
lawfulness, and, in some cases, the expedience and ne- 
cessity of religious controversy ; and I have endeavor- 
ed to form some definite view 7 s of the principles, on 
which it ought to be conducted. But I will frankly ex- 
press my apprehension, that it may require more cau- 
tion, meekness, and self control, than I possess, to secure 



4 



an exact observance of those rules of controversy, which 
I should prescribe for others. At the present time, and 
in my present undertaking, I cannot be insensible of spe- 
cial danger, as the controversy between the two parties 
has, for several years, been carried on in various forms, 
and with no inconsiderable warmth, and there are, I am 
sorry to say, on both sides, and even among the more 
moderate, too many symptoms of strong excitement. 
But whatever may be the circumstances of the present 
time, or the nature of the business I have undertaken, 
I wish here to declare my utter abhorrence of the prac- 
tice, which has been too common, of applying reproach- 
ful epithets to an opponent, and of misrepresenting his 
real opinions, or endeavoring, by painting them in the 
most glaring colors, to expose them to contempt ; — espe- 
cially, of any disposition to sully his reputation, to inflict 
a wound on his feelings, or to triumph at the discovery 
of his imperfections. Such things are totally repugnant 
to the legitimate ends of controversy, and ought to be 
reprobated by all Christians, just as we reprobate the 
ferocities and cruelties of savage war. 

The sermon, which occasions these Letters to you, 
is entitled to particular attention, on account of the tal- 
ents and public character of the author, and, most of all, 
because he feels himself authorised to speak in your 
name. The sermon comes forth, as the voice of your 
denomination, and is extensively circulated, as an instru- 
ment of promoting your cause. On such an occasion, it 
is unquestionably proper, that our attention should be 
turned afresh to the question, whether the cause, which 
this sermon advocates, is indeed the cause of God. 

To men, who are friends to unfettered inquiry, I 
shall think it unnecessary to offer any apology for the 
freedom of my remarks on the various subjects, which 



5 



will be brought into view in these Letters. And 1 hope 
you will not deem it improper, that my remarks should 
be addressed to you 9 — inasmuch as the subjects of the 
discussion, on which I am entering, have been introduced 
by one, who appears before the public, as your repre- 
sentative ; — -especially, as the manner, in which he treats 
these subjects is, in most respects, not unlike the man- 
ner, in which they have generally been treated by those, 
who have embraced the Arian or Socinian faith. This 
sermon is a fair specimen of the mode, in which we have 
been accustomed to see our religious opinions opposed 
in the writings of Unitarians, Now it must be allowed 
to be a sufficient justification of this attempt of mine, if 
I am fully convinced, that my opinions, and those of the 
Orthodox generally, are misunderstood, and essentially 
misrepresented by Unitarians, and particularly by the 
author of this sermon. I am convinced of this. And I 
think too, that the mistaken views, exhibited in the ser- 
mon, are exhibited in a manner, which, after cool and 
sober examination, neither the writer, nor his readers, 
will be much disposed to justify. 

It seems there has, for some time, been a general 
expectation in this vicinity of some publication from me 
relative to the sermon which has occasioned these Let- 
ters ; and inquiries have not unfrequently been made, as 
to the reasons of such a delay. Those reasons I will 
now frankly suggest. First. The regular duties of my 
office are sufficient to occupy my whole time ; and I 
found it w T ould require some effort in me, to be able to 
devote only a few hours in a week to such an employ- 
ment as this. Another reason was, that I wished not 
to interrupt the attention, which the public were inclin- 
ed to give to what had already been w r ritten, on one of 
the principal subjects of discussion between the two par- 



6 



ties. Besides ; I hoped that by taking a longer time, I 
should keep myself at a greater distance from the agi- 
tation and heat of controversy, and more perfectly avoid 
every appearance of wishing to make a personal attack 
upon any man; and that I should be better able to fix 
your attention, as well as my own, upon the subjects 
themselves, which were to be investigated, without re- 
gard to any considerations whatever, not conducive to 
a fair and thorough investigation. 

The favor which I now ask of you is, not that you 
would treat my opinions and arguments with lenity and 
forbearance, but that you would give me a patient and 
candid hearing, while I attempt, on several important 
points, to explain and defend the religious sentiments of 
the Orthodox in New-England; and while I attempt to 
show, in what respects the writings of Unitarians essen- 
tially misrepresent our faith, and go into a manner of 
reasoning which is liable to just exceptions. I wish, par- 
ticularly, to state the objections I feel, to several repre- 
sentations and modes of argumentation, contained in this 
Sermon, and to suggest some reasons, why the Author 
himself, and those who have implicitly relied upon the 
correctness of his positions, should allow themselves 
time for a serious review of the ground of this contro- 
versy. I wish, in short, as far as the limits which I must 
prescribe for myself will allow, to embraee the present 
opportunity, to do justice to myself and my brethren, and 
to satisfy those, who differ from us, as to the character 
and the evidence of that system of religion, which we 
Relieve. 

The subjects, which have been discussed by my belov- 
ed Colleague, the Rev. Moses Stuart, will here be omit- 
ted. I regret, with many others, that his health and 
professional labors did not permit him to employ his tal- 



7 



cnts and erudition on all the remaining topics of the Ser- 
mon. It is at his suggestion, and by his request, that I 
have turned aside from my common labors, and, let me 
say too, from my prevailing determination, so much as to 
take a part publicly in the controversy, which unhappi- 
ly divides this region of our country. But, though I am 
urged to this undertaking by the request of those, in 
whom I am accustomed to repose entire confidence, and 
though I am fully persuaded that the opinions of the Or- 
thodox have been treated unjustly ; I am almost ready 
to withdraw my hand from this work, from a painful ap- 
prehension, that my efforts may serve but to increase or 
perpetuate the spirit of prejudice and animosity, which 
has shown itself among us in so many forms, and which, 
so far as it prevails, does really cut off all prospect of 
attaining; the ends of free investigation. But I indulge 
the hope, that a different spirit is gaining ground. And 
I could wish, that the Reverend Author, who has under- 
taken to speak in your behalf, might have enjoyed the 
happiness of a more unruffled mind, and the honor of do- 
ing something more for that cause, which he is so well 
able to promote, — the cause of love, candor, and gentleness, 
I think that he, and many others will acknowledge the 
benefit they have, in this respect, derived from the ex- 
ample of my worthy Colleague. It is from the hope, 
that I may be guided by the same motive with him, and 
that, whatever else I may fail of accomplishing, I may 
help, in some measure, to diffuse a spirit of unprejudiced 
inquiry and christian kindness, that I am encouraged to 
proceed. 



LETTER II. 



My respected friends, 

The Author, who speaks in your name, has at length, 
it seems, obtained satisfaction, as to the propriety of hav- 
ing a creed, or confession of faith. In his sermon, he has 
expressly given to the public the opinions which Unita- 
rians embrace, in distinction from the opinions, common- 
ly called Orthodox. The design is just and honorable. 
I am utterly unable to conceive, what valid objection 
there can be against the attempt of any denomination of 
Christians, to make the public acquainted with their views 
on religious subjects ; or, in other words, to exhibit the 
articles of their faith. The thing is evidently proper in 
itself, and often necessary, though liable to abuse. With 
so respectable an example before you, I trust you will 
be free from any further difficulties on this subject, and 
will proceed, as occasion may require, to correct any 
mistaken apprehensions which the public may entertain, 
as to your opinions, and to give them a just view of what 
you believe to be the Christian religion. You owe this 
to the community. You owe it to yourselves. And it 
is obvious, that justice, in this respect, can be rendered 
to you by none, but yourselves. Other men, especially 
those who differ from you, cannot be competent to make 
known your faith, any farther than they are instructed 
and authorized by you. Doubtless you have felt that 
you have had reason to complain of the incorrectness of 
some Orthodox writers, who have undertaken to make 
a statement of your views. It is with manifest proprie- 
ty, that you have now claimed the right, and through 
him, who acts as your organ of communication, have ex- 



9 



ercised the right, of declaring your own opinions. If you 
are just to yourselves, you will not stop here. Whenev- 
er others impute to you opinions, which you do not 
entertain, or deny to you those, which you do entertain; 
and whenever they are doubtful as to your faith, or in 
any way misrepresent it ; you will feel that, of right, it 
belongs to you to interpose, and to do yourselves jus- 
tice. And you would think it a gross violation of the 
rules of christian candor, for any man to declare your 
opinions to be different from your own serious declara- 
tion. — Grant me, and those with whom I have the hap- 
piness to be united in opinion, the same right, which you 
so justly claim for yourselves,— the right of forming and 
declaring our own opinions, and of being believed, when we 
declare them. We have a just claim to the last, as well 
as to the first, unless there are substantial reasons to 
question our veracity. 

By the diligent application of our rational powers to 
the study of the Scriptures, with the best helps which 
have been afforded us, we have arrived at some sober, 
settled views on the subjects of religion. These views 
we wish, for various reasons, to declare. And if we 
would declare them justly, we must declare them in our 
own language, and do what is in our power to make that 
language intelligible to all. Where the meaning of the 
terms employed is doubtful, or obscure ; it belongs to us 
to give the necessary explanations. Where the terms 
are liable to be understood with greater latitude, than 
comports with our views ; it belongs to us to give the 
necessary limitations. And where our positions, in any 
respect whatever, need modifying; it belongs to us to 
modify them. — Further. It is certainly reasonable to 
expect, when dealing with men of candid, liberal minds, 
that the language which, in any case, we use to express 

2 



10 



our faith, will be understood, not in the sense which, ta- 
ken by itself, it would possibly bear, nor in the sense 
which others might be inclined, for party purposes, to 
put upon it, — but precisely according to our explanations. 
These explanations, you will understand, do as really 
make a part of the proper enunciation of our faith, as 
the words which form the general proposition. Nothing 
can be more obviously just than all this, especially in 
relation to a subject, which is of a complex nature, or 
of difficult illustration. 

With respect to this point of equity and honor, 1 have 
a few remarks to make on the Sermon now under con- 
sideration. The Author informs the public, what opinions 
he, and those who agree with him, embrace, and what 
they reject. This he has a right to do. Considering 
the circumstances of the case, he ought to do it. Nor 
can any one doubt that he is qualified to do it in the best 
manner. But he goes farther. He undertakes to give an 
account of my creed, and the creed of others with whom 
I agree. This is a more delicate task. In this he is 
evidently liable to mistake ; and after all he may say 
on the subject, we may find it necessary to speak for 
ourselves. If the account he gives of our faith is not 
given in our language, and with our explanations and 
modifications,— certainly if not given in a manner which 
corresponds with our real opinions ; we must notice the 
incorrectness. Most of all shall we have reason for some 
animadversion upon him, if he adopts, in any measure, 
that mode of representation, which men usually adopt, 
who wish to make the opinions of their opponents ap- 
pear as exceptionable and absurd as possible. 

So far as this sermon shall come under review, my 
remarks will relate chiefly to two points. The first is, 
its affirming that certain opinions belong peculiarly and ex- 



i i 



clusively to Unitarians, when in fact they are held by the 
Orthodox. The secoyid is, the misrepresentations it makes 
of the opinions which the Orthodox entertain, and of the rea- 
soning commonly used to support them. These two points 
cannot be kept perfectly distinct in every part of the 
discussion ; but it will be sufficiently evident to which my 
observations relate. For the present I shall beg your 
attention to the first. 

Heretofore, it has been common for Unitarians in 
this country, and, if I mistake not, for this Author him- 
self, to assert that, in respect of religious opinions, there 
is no essential difference between them and the Orthodox. 
For the sake of preventing disunion and strife, they 
have seemed to think it desirable, that the difference 
should be made to appear as small as possible. But 
from the tenor of this discourse, one would be apt to 
suppose that this Author's judgment or feelings had 
changed, and that he thought some important end was' to 
be answered, by making the difference between the two 
parties as wide as possible. If this is a matter of fact, it 
is easy to see how it may have occasioned some of the 
mistakes, into which he has been led. 

In the Sermon, p. 3, he declares what regard he and 
his particular friends feel for the Bible, and the princi- 
ples of interpretation, by which they govern themselves 
in determining what doctrines it contains.—" We regard 
the Scriptures," he says," as the record of God's succes- 
sive revelation to mankind, and particularly of the last 
and most perfect revelation of his will by Jesus Christ- 
Whatever doctrines seem to us to be clearly taught in 
the Scriptures we receive without reserve or exception." 
• — It is implied in what he says, that this sentiment of 
reverence for the Scriptures is peculiar to Unitarians. 
For he first expresses his design to lay before his hear- 



12 



ers, " some of the distinguishing opinions of that class of 
Christians," in whose name he speaks, and then at the 
close says, that he has given their " distinguishing views ; ,? 
that is, their views in distinction from those of the Or- 
thodox. — I ask then, is it so ? Is this high veneration 
for the Scriptures peculiar to Unitarians ? — Do not the 
Orthodox uniformly declare their reverence for the Bi- 
ble, and their readiness to submit to all its instructions ? 
Do they not embrace that system of doctrines, which is 
peculiar to them, purely because they are convinced it 
is contained in the word of God, and because with this 
conviction, they cannot reject it, without disrespect to 
that word ? — Read their confessions of faith, their sys- 
tems of Divinity, their Commentaries, Sermons, cate- 
chisms, and books of devotion, and then say, whether 
they do not manifest as high a regard for the sacred 
volume, as this Author expresses? — Why then should it 
be- signified, that this veneration for the Bible is among 
those things, which distinguish Unitarians from the Or- 
thodox ? — Such a representation must certainly appear 
somewhat unaccountable to one, who knows w T hat opin- 
ions have generally been avowed and defended by 
these two parties, respecting the regard which is due to 
the Holy Scriptures. 

As to these principles of interpretation, there is no 
need of adding any thing to what has been written by 
my Reverend Colleague. You perceive that these prin- 
ciples are not peculiar to Unitarians. They are substan- 
tially the principles of the Orthodox ; so that, if you 
adopt them, the question between us is not, as would 
appear from the Sermon, whether the principles are to 
be" admitted ; but to what conclusions will they coduct us, 
vhen fairly applied to the interpretation of Scripture. 



13 



In relation to this point, the Author does indeed 
seem to make a concession in favor of others. — " We 
do not announce these principles," he says, " as original 
or peculiar to ourselves." — But immediately he takes 
occasion to follow his opponents with a train of reproach- 
ful insinuations, signifying, that although they occasional- 
ly adopt these principles, they vehemently decry them, 
when their cause requires; that they willingly avail them- 
selves of reason, when it can be pressed into the service 
of their own party, and only complain of it, when its 
weapons wound themselves ; that they violate the fun- 
damental rules of reasoning, sacrifice the plain to the. 
obscure, &c. . 

Under the same head I might place the following 
remarks of this Author.—" God's wisdom is a pledge, 
that whatever is necessary for us, and necessary for sal- 
vation, is revealed too plainly to be mistaken, and too 
consistently to be questioned by a sound and upright 
mind. It is not a mark of wisdom, to use an unintelligi- 
ble phraseology, and to confuse and unsettle the intel- 
lect by appearances of contradiction." — Here also he 
evidently means to express sentiments, which belong pe- 
culiarly to his own party. — I cannot but think it strange, 
that it did not occur to his recollection, that the plainness 
and intelligibleness of the Scriptures on all essential points 
is a principle, for which the Orthodox in New England 
have uniformly contended with great zeal, even in their 
controversy with Unitarians. 

Under the second head of his discourse, the Author 
undertakes " to state some of the views which Unitari- 
ans derive from the sacred book, particularly those 
which distinguish them from other Christians." — It wiil 
be to my purpose just to notice the first doctrine he 
states, though it has been remarked upon so satisfac- 



14 



torily in the publication above named. This is the 
unity of God ; which the Author represents as a doc- 
trine peculiar to his party. After reading his remarks, 
and the remarks of other Unitarians on this subject, who 
would expect to find, that all respectable writers on the 
side of Orthodoxy have strenuously asserted the unity of 
God, as a fundamental doctrine of revelation, and have 
declared, times without number, that they could admit 
no views of the divine character inconsistent with this ? 
Who would expect to find that, in all Confessions of faith 
written by Trinitarians, the unity of God is one of the first 
doctrines which is asserted, and in all their systems of 
Divinity, one of the first, which is distinctly and largely 
defended ? — Truly, my respected friends, this doctrine 
is as important in our view, as it can be in yours. And 
we could not in reality have more reason to charge 
Unitarian Authors with injustice, should they represent 
us as denying the existence of God, than we have, when 
they represent us as denying his unity. 

But Ave proceed to another point, on which this Au- 
thor lays still greater stress. — " We believe," he says, 
" in the moral perfection of God. — We value our views of 
Christianity chiefly, as they assert his amiable and ven- 
erable attributes. 5 '— From the professed object of the 
discourse, and the language here employed, it appears, 
that the Author makes it the grand characteristic of 
Unitarianism in distinction from Orthodoxy, that it as- 
serts the moral perfection of God. — -But is this represen- 
tation, as to the grand distinction between the parties, 
according to truth? Is it a representation, which he is 
authorized to make ? — When the most eminent Divines 
and most enlightened Christians, who have at any time 
embraced the common doctrines of Orthodoxy,— Luther, 
Calvin, Boyle, Hale, Baxter, Doddridge, Watts, the Ed- 



15 



wardses, the Matthers, the Coopers, and multitudes, not 
to be numbered, of the same general faith, unite in de- 
claring expressly, and constantly, that they believe in the 
moral perfection of God, that they ascribe to him infinite 
justice, goodness, and holiness, and continually adore his 
amiable and venerable attributes ; — who is it that thinks 
himself entitled to look down upon this host of worthies, 
and reply, — " it is very possible to speak of God mag- 
nificently, and to think of him meanly ; to apply to his 
person high sounding epithets, and to his government, 
principles which make him odious. The heathens cal- 
led Jupiter the greatest and the best ; but his history 
was black with cruelty and lust. 5 ' — I make use of no 
high coloring. This is the reply, which the Author of 
the sermon makes, actually, and in so many words, to 
the most serious professions of the Orthodox, whoever 
they may be, as to their belief in the moral perfection of 
God. If he does not mean to apply what I have quot- 
ed, to the Orthodox, he has lost sight of the object of 
his discourse, and his subsequent reasoning, as you will 
see in a moment, is wholly impertinent. 

In another form, he afterwards repeats insinuations 
of the same sort. " We believe," he says, — " We" em- 
phatically, and by way of distinction from the Orthodox, 
■ — " We believe that in no being is the sense of right so 
strong, so omnipotent, as in God. We believe that his 
almighty power is entirely submitted to his perception 
of rectitude. — It is not because he is our Creator mere- 
ly, but because he created us for good and holy purpos- 
es ; it is not because his will is irresistible, but because 
his will is the perfection of virtue, that we pay him al- 
legiance. We cannot bow before a being, however great 
and powerful, who governs tyrannically. We respect 
nothing but excellence, whether on earth or in heaven." 



lb 



— Now the whole body of enlightened Christians, who 
embrace the common orthodox faith, give their united 
testimony to the same truths, and declare their venera- 
tion and love for a God of the same amiable character. 
In their creeds, systems, sermons, psalmody, and pray- 
ers, they abundantly assert these views respecting the 
moral perfectien of God. They have asserted them con- 
tinually, and publicly. They have taught them to their 
children. They have repeated them in a thousand 
forms. — And yet this author, speaking in your name 
too, feels himself entitled to say to them all in reply;— 
44 It is very possible to speak of God magnificently, and 
to think of him meanly. — Your system takes from us our 
Father in heaven, and substitutes for him a being, whom 
we cannot love if we would, and whom we ought not to 
love if we could." — Candor and liberality of mind are vir- 
tues which Unitarians have considered peculiarly honora- 
ble, and which they have appeared ambitious to advance 
to the highest degree of influence. I would just inquire, 
whether these virtues are likely to be improved, or to ac- 
quire greater influence, either among Unitarians, or the 
Orthodox, by such language as this Author uses respect- 
ing his opponents, — -language apparently expressive of 
real conviction, and characterized bv strength and ele- 
gance, but unfortunately wanting in justice and truth. — 
We claim the right of thinking for ourselves, and of de- 
claring what we think. But according to the principle 
which seems to govern this writer's pen, there would be 
no possibility of our ever making a declaration of our 
opinions, which would be entitled to credit. For sup- 
pose we should profess our full assent to the strongest 
propositions of this author respecting the moral perfec- 
tion of God ; suppose we should say the very things 
which he says, in the same forms, and in different forms. 



17 



and should enlarge upon them, and carry them into their 
practical uses, and should show by our conduct, that 
such are our sober views of the divine character; he 
could still meet all this with the reply ; — " It is possible 
to apply to God's person high sounding epithets, and to 
his government, principles which make him odious. The 
heathens called Jupiter the greatest and the best ; but 
his history was black with cruelty and lust." — If the 
picture, which this Author has drawn of our opinions on 
this subject were chargeable with only a little misrepre- 
sentation ; — or if it were ever so great a misrepresenta- 
tion on a subject of no considerable importance ; it would 
be worthy of little notice. But it is, if I mistake not, a 
great and total misrepresentation, on a subject of vital 
consequence to religion, both theoretic and practical. 
And every man, and every child, who has received his 
impression from this sermon, as to the views of the Or- 
thodox on the subject now under consideration, has been 
led into a palpable and total mistake as to a matter of 
fact, — a matter of fact, concerning which the Orthodox 
must be considered the best, and the only competent 
judges. To them therefore I appeal. And I am sure 
they will be sensible of the truth of what I say, and will 
be compelled, from a sense of justice to themselves, to 
declare, that, however free from blame the motives of 
this Author may have been, the representation he has 
here made of their views, is totally incorrect, — that it is 
false throughout, and in the highest degree. 



LETTER III. 



My respected friends, 

I wish you not to infer from any thing contained 
in the foregoing letter, nor from the general aspect 
of it, that I am desirous of avoiding that kind of investi- 
gation, which the Author of the sermon has represented, 
as necessary in this case. — 44 We cannot," he remarks, 
44 judge of men's real ideas of God from their general 
language. — We must inquire into their particular views 
of his purposes, of the principles of his administration, 
and of his disposition towards his creatures." — To this 
mode of proceeding I cheerfully accede. Accordingly, 
I will not ask you to rest ultimately on my bare assertion, 
that Unitarians give an incorrect account of our opinions, 
nor upon my general declaration, that we believe in the 
moral perfection of God. — That you may be under the 
best advantages to judge, whether we do in fact, believe 
in the moral perfection of God, it appears indispensable 
that I should state, summarily, what particular views we 
entertain of God's character, — 44 of the principles of his 
administration, and of his disposition towards his crea- 
tures." — For the correctness of the statement I shall now 
make, I must refer you to the writings of those Orthodox 
Divines, who are the most judicious, and the most gen- 
erally approved. 

Views of the Orthodox respecting the moral character 
and government of God. 

The sentiment, which forms the basis of our system, 
is, that God is love. This declaration of Scripture we 
understand in its plain and obvious sense, and believe it 
happily expresses the whole moral character of God. — 



19 



He is a Being of infinite and perfect benevolence ; — benev- 
olence without mixture, and without variation. This is the 
disposition of God toward his creatures ; the disposition 
which prompted him to create, and which prompts him 
to govern. The object of benevolence, or goodness, is, 
to do good, to promote real happiness. The object of 
infinite benevolence must be to promote the highest de- 
gree of happiness. — As to the ways, in which God will 
secure the greatest amount of happiness to his intelli- 
gent creation, we can know nothing, except what God is 
pleased to reveal. So far as our duty or comfort is con- 
cerned, he has given us instruction. According to the 
Scriptures, the grand means, by which God will promote 
the happiness of his kingdom, is the administration of a 
moral government. Such a government implies a law, en- 
forced by proper sanctions ; that is, by the promise of 
good to the obedient, and the threat of evil to the dis- 
obedient. These promises and threats, being necessary 
parts of a benevolent moral government, are expressions 
of the divine goodness. So is the execution of them. 
Thus the proper punishment of the disobedient, as it is 
essential to the administration of a perfect moral gov- 
ernment, is, in reality, an act of goodness, — an expression 
of God's benevolent regard to his kingdom. When 
there is occasion for it, a good father will punish. He 
may punish not only consistently with his being good, but 
because he is good. God is a father to his kingdom ; and 
will, therefore^ show his displeasure against that which 
tends to injure that kingdom. — As to the degree and du- 
ration of the punishment, which will be inflicted on 
transgressors, we are, of ourselves, wholly incompetent 
to judge ; for the obvious reason, that we are not capa- 
ble of knowing what the present and future interests of 
a kingdom, so extensive, will require. We believe that 



20 



according to the Scriptures, God will inflict on the 
wicked a great and everlasting punishment. But, so 
far as reasoning is concerned, we believe this, as a 
consequence of believing, that God will feel and manifest 
displeasure against sin in proportion to the strength of 
the love, which he feels for his kingdom. In other 
words, we believe he will inflict on the disobedient that 
very punishment, which they deserve, and which, He be- 
ing judge, the welfare of his kingdom renders necessary. 
We consider the demerit of sin to be great, in proportion 
to the moral excellence of God, against whom it is com- 
mitted, and to the value of those interests, which it aims 
to destroy. Here you see why we view punitive justice, 
as a branch of benevolence, an exercise of goodness. As 
God is a moral Governor, and the Guardian of the inter- 
ests of the creation, the want of justice in punishing of- 
fences would betray the want of goodness. Thus we be- 
lieve, as this Author informs us Unitarians believe, — that 
the justice of God " is the justice of a good being, dwel- 
ling in the same mind, and acting in harmony with per- 
fect benevolence." He represents the belief, " that jus- 
tice and mercy are intimate friends, breathing the same 
spirit, and seeking the same end," as peculiar to Unita- 
rians ; though it is in truth the general belief of the Or- 
thodox. — But in case of transgression, justice and mercy 
must seek the same end in different ways. In the exer- * 
cise of justice, God seeks the happiness of his kingdom 
by punishing an offence ; — in the exercise of mercy, or 
grace, by forgiving an offence. This Author says, " God's 
mercy, as we understand it, desires strongly the happi- 
ness of the guilty." We believe the same. But he 
adds a condition. " God's mercy desires strongly the 
happiness of the guilty, but only through their penitence" 
—We go farther. We believe, indeed, that repentance 



21 



is essential to the happiness of the guilty ; but we be- 
lieve also, because we are so taught in the Scriptures, 
that repentance itself, without the death of a Mediator, 
could be of no avail. To forgive sin in any other way, 
than through the shedding of blood, would not consist 
with a due regard to " the interests of virtue," and so, 
to use this Author's language, " would be incompatible 
with justice, and also with enlightened benevolence." 
On the other hand, we think it equally clear, that the 
happiness of the impenitent would be not only inconsist- 
ent with the divine perfections, but in the nature of 
things impossible. 

We believe, as sincerely as Unitarians do, in the pa- 
ternal character of God. You " ascribe to him," as this 
Author informs us, " not only the name, but the disposi- 
tions, and principles of a father." With the qualifica- 
tions which the divine perfection renders necessary, we 
do the same. — The language refers to the dispositions 
of a human father. These dispositions belong to God, 
so Jar as is consistent with his infinite perfection. It is 
plain, that the dispositions of God, and the conduct flow- 
ing from them cannot, in all respects, resemble the dis- 
positions and conduct of a human father. The nature 
of a human father, and the relation he sustains to his 
children, have but an imperfect analogy to the nature of 
God, and the relation he sustains to his creatures. From 
this we conclude, that his treatment of his creatures can- 
not be fully represented by the treatment, which a hu- 
man father gives his children. Permit me to illustrate 
this by a few examples. — What human father, possessing 
even a common degree of paternal kindness and compas- 
sion, would ever treat his children, as God treated his 
rational offspring, when he destroyed the world by a del- 
uge, or Sodom by fire, or when he caused the earth to 



22 



open and swallow up the company of Korah? Would 
a compassionate father drown his children, or consume 
them by fire, or bury them alive in the earth? — God 
suffers his rational creatures, even harmless children, to 
die of hunger, or of sickness, or to be destroyed by some 
act of cruelty. Could a human father stand and see his 
children die thus, when it was in the power of his hand 
to afford relief? — I mention these among a thousand in- 
stances, as proof, that the analogy between God and a 
human father, though a very striking and delightful one, 
is not perfect, and may be carried too far. Most certain- 
ly it is carried too far by those, who undertake to prove 
what God will do or will not do, as to the punishment of 
the wicked in the future world, by the consideration, that 
he is metaphorically called a father. The analogy implied 
in this metaphor must be guarded, and kept within due 
limits, as carefully as the analogy implied in the meta- 
phors, by which God is called a fire, a man of war, &c, 
It is not necessary here particularly to exhibit the prin- 
ciples, which we apply in the interpretation of meta- 
phorical language. I will only say, in short, that we can 
be in no danger of mistake, when we fix upon the analo- 
gy, which is suggested by the metaphor itself, and by 
the manifest design of the writer, and limit the analogy, 
as we do in common cases, by the knowledge we have ob- 
tained of the subject from other sources. On these 

principles, the soundness of which will not be called in 
question, we look to God as a father ; we love him as 
a father ; we trust in him as a father. We believe he 
has a paternal affection for his rational offspring, and 
takes delight, as a father does, in promoting their wel- 
fare. Nay more ; we believe that the love of God is 
not only sincere and durable, like that of a father, but is 
free from all human imperfection, and distinguished by a 



I 



23 

purity, elevation, and activity, infinitely superior to what 
belongs to the love of the best father on earth. 

I cannot do justice to Orthodox ministers without ad- 
ding, that their belief in the moral excellence of God is 
not a matter of mere speculation. It is in the highest 
degree practical. They make the infinite and immuta- 
ble goodness of God the grand motive to religious wor- 
ship. They inculcate it, as the spring of all pious affec- 
tions. They present it to the view of Christians to pro- 
duce higher love, gratitude, and joy. They present it 
to the view of sinners, to show them the inexcusable 
guilt and baseness of their disaffection to their Maker, 
and to induce them to return to him by repentance. 
They dwell upon the unchangeable love of God, which 
has a length, and breadth, and depth, and height, passing 
all understanding, as the source of joy in prosperity, of 
comfort in affliction, and triumph in death. And they 
lead Christians to expect, that their highest enjoyments 
in heaven will arise from the more glorious display, which 
God will there make, of his infinite benignity and grace. 

It would be great injustice to Orthodox ministers 
and Christians, both in Europe and America, to pass over 
the influence, which their belief in the divine goodness 
has, to excite benevolent exertion. It is because they be- 
lieve that God is love, and that he is ready to pardon and 
save all who repent, that they are engaged in such plans 
of benevolence, and are striving, in various ways, to en- 
lighten and convert the world. In all these benevolent 
efforts, they are aiming at a humble imitation of Him. 
who is the supreme object of their veneration and love. 

Now when I consider what stress the Orthodox lay 
upon the moral perfection of God, the variety of ways, 
in which they acknowledge and affirm it, and the para- 
mount influence which it has upon their conduct: lam 



24 



not a little surprised that any man should charge them 
with denying it. It is, in reality, the very last thing they 
would deny. I appeal to millions of witnesses, who will 
tell you, that they are as far from denying the moral 
perfection of God, as they are from denying that he exists; 
and that his existence would not only cease to afford 
them satisfaction, but would fill them with anxiety and 
dread, had they not a certain belief, that he is possessed 
of perfect rectitude, of unbounded and unchangeable 
goodness. And after the statement I have now made, 
and similar statements made by others, of the sentiments 
of the Orthodox on this subject ; I leave it to you can- 
didly to judge, what occasion the Author of this sermon 
could have for saying what he does, in the following pa- 
thetic passage; — " We ask our opponents to leave us a 
God, worthy of our love and trust, in whom our moral 
sentiments may delight, in whom our weaknesses and 
sorrows may find refuge." 



LETTER IV. 



My respected friends, 

I would now ask your attention more particularly to 
the manner, in which the Author of this sermon attempts 
to make it appear, that we deny the moral perfection of 
God. If I understand him right, as I think I do, he in- 
fers our denial of God's moral perfection from our " par- 
ticular views of his purposes, of the principles of his ad- 
ministration, and of his disposition towards his crea- 
tures." 

Now if we admit,' for the present, the most that any 
ome could desire, — that our views on these subjects are, 



25 

in reality, inconsistent with the moral perfection of God ; 
still the allegation here brought against us, is not well 
supported. — I may really believe a certain important doc- 
trine, though I believe other things inconsistent with it. 
The consistency of my belief is one thing ; the reality of 
it, another. I may entertain various opinions, which, if 
examined thoroughly, would appear inconsistent with my 
belief of some primary truth; — yet the inconsistency may 
not be apparent to me ; and I may as really believe 
that primary truth, and act as much under its influence, 
as though I did not entertain those other opinions. In 
such a case, though an opponent might attack me on 
the ground of my consistency, he would not, with any 
justice, represent me as denying that primary truth. Ac- 
cordingly, the most which this Author could properly 
say, even on the admission above supposed, would be 
that we do not believe the moral perfection of God con- 
sistently, though we may believe it really. 

But can the Orthodox be justly charged with en- 
tertaining opinions, which are, in fact, inconsistent with 
their belief in the moral perfection of God ? this is the 
question now to be argued. The Author of the sermon 
seems to rest the charge chiefly on two points ; first, the 
doctrine we hold as to the natural character of man ; 
second, the doctrine we hold, as to the manner in which 
God designates the heirs of salvation. — I shall begin with 
the first. 

Here allow me to remark, with freedom, on the 
mode of reasoning which in my apprehension, ought to 
be pursued on such a subject as this. — I am happy to 
find the following principle suggested by the Author of 
the sermon. — " Whatever doctrines seem to us to be 
clearly taught in the Scriptures, we receive without re- 
serve or exception." Right. But in relation to this 

4 



2b' 



subject, has he adhered to his own principle ? With re- 
spect to the common doctrine of man's depravity, the 
grand inquiry which ought to have engaged his attention, 
was this ; — Do the scriptures, understood according to just 
rules of interpretation, teach the doctrine ? And does the 
doctrine agree with facts, made known by experience and ob- 
servation reasoning a priori, in this case especial- 
ly, is to be rejected. And so is every hypothesis, unless 
it is evidently founded on Scripture and observation. 
Independently of revelation, and well known fact§, we 
are actually incapable of judging, what the goodness of God 
will require, as to the condition of man ; or what man's 
character and state must be, under the government of a be- 
ing infinitely wise and benevolent. Our inability to judge 
on the subject might be made evident, from the utter 
impossibility of our having any adequate knowledge re- 
specting either the infinite perfection of God, or the vast 
and endless scheme of his operations. But without any 
labored argument to prove, what must be so plain to 
every intelligent man, it will be sufficient for my pres- 
ent purpose, merely to refer to a few other facts, which 
are admitted on all hands, but which are quite as differ- 
ent from what we should have previously thought agree- 
able to the infinite perfections of God, as the moral de- 
pravity of man. — Who would have supposed that a God 
of tender compassion and unbounded goodness would send 
plagues, hurricanes, and earthquakes, and involve mul- 
titudes of affectionate parents, and multitudes of lovely, 
helpless children in a sudden and dreadful destruction ? 
—Who would have thought that the Lord of the uni- 
verse, who has an absolute control over all creatures 
and all events, would suffer the cruelties and horrors of 
the Slave-trade to exist for so long a time ?— These are 
great difficulties. But there is one still greater ; name- 



27 



iy ; that the God of love, who delights in mercy, and would 
have all men to be savea\ and who has given his Son to die 
for the redemption of the world, should, after all, suffer the 
greater part of the world to live and die without any knowl- 
edge of the Savior.— These facts, which are known to all, 
are as far from being agreeable to what we should nat- 
urally imagine the infinite goodness of God would dictate, 
as the fact, that men are subjects of moral depravity. 
But our being unable, by the mere exercise of reason, to 
discover the consistency between these facts and the infin- 
ite goodness of God, is no proof that the facts do not ex- 
ist, and no proof that they are in reality inconsistent with 
divine goodness. — With regard to all subjects like these, 
the only mode of reasoning, which can be relied upon to 
lead us to right conclusions, is that which is pursued ir\ 
the science of Physics. Regulating ourselves by the 
maxims of Bacon and Newton, we inquire, not what we 
should expect the properties and laws of the physical 
world would be, nor whether this or that thing can 
be reconciled with the infinite wisdom and goodness of 
God, — but simply, what is fact 6 ? What do we find from 
observation and experience, that the properties and laws of 
nature really are ? This inquiry, to be philosophical, must 
be perfectly unembarrassed by any other inquiry ? The 
moment we undertake to shape the conclusions we adopt, 
or the facts we discover, so as to make them conform to 
any preconceived opinion ; we depart from the legitimate 
rule of philosophical research, and expose ourselves to 
endless perplexity and error. I might, if necessary, fill 
a volume with examples of the vagaries of human rea- 
son, flowing from the neglect of this grand principle of 
philosophical research. The importance of this princi- 
ple, and the hurtful consequences of disregarding it, are 
now admitted by all enlightened philosophers. And it 



28 



is to the strict observance of it, that we owe our present 
advancement in the science of Physics, 

Now this principle is as applicable to the science of 
Theology, as to the science of Physics, Indeed, it will be 
found that in Theology it is still more necessary, and that 
any departure from it, is attended with still greater dan- 
ger, than in Physics. Theology, as well as Philosophy, is 
founded on facts. The first thing to be done in either 
case, is to determine, by the proper method of inquiry, 
what are the facts, on which the science is founded. In 
Philosophy, we learn facts merely by observation and 
experience. In Theology, we have additional aid. Rev- 
elation, as well as observation and experience, makes 
known facts, which form the basis of Theological reason- 
ing. But in both cases, the chief object of inquiry, and 
the rule of reasoning are the same. We first inquire for 
the knowledge of facts; and by reasoning from facts, 
we arrive at general truths. If in either case we neg- 
lect this grand principle of reasoning, we are involved 
in uncertainty, confusion, and error. Suppose a man at- 
tempts to prove, from what he thinks divine wisdom or 
benevolence must dictate, or from what he knows of some 
other subject, that all parts of the earth must enjoy equal 
illumination and warmth from the influence of the sun, 
and must afford equal advantages and comforts to the in- 
habitants. But what becomes of his arguments, when 
he looks abroad, and compares the rocks, and ice, and 
gloomy nights of Greenland, or the sands of Arabia, with 
the pleasantness and fertility of some other parts of the 
earth ? Or suppose, in any case, he assumes what must 
be the nature of some particular thing, but afterwards 
finds, that the phenomena, which that thing exhibits, do 
not correspond with his assumption. Shall he deny or 
disregard those phenomena ? Or shall he not rather 



29 



dismiss his assumption ? — Now it is not a whit less un- 
philosophical, to admit any presumptive or hypotheti- 
cal reasoning in Ethics, or Theology, than in the science 
of Physics. — Suppose we think it inconsistent with the in- 
finite goodness of God, that he should create an order of 
rational beings, and place them in such circumstances of 
temptation, as he certainly knew would be followed by 
their transgression and ruin; or that a God of infinite 
power, who has all hearts and all events in his hand, 
should suffer mankind, through a hundred generations, to 
be in a state of ignorance, rebellion, and wretchedness, 
when it is so easy for him to prevent it. But suppose 
on further inquiry, we find in both cases the existence of 
facts, which we denied. Shall we deny them still ? — It 
is true we may not be able to reconcile them with the 
perfections of God. What then ? Are we omniscient ? 
Is our understanding above the possibility of mistake ? 

These remarks are intended to simplify the object of 
inquiry, with regard to the native character of man. 
They are intended to show that, according to the just 
principles of reasoning in such a case, we have nothing 
to do with the inquiry, whether the common doctrine of 
depravity can consist with the moral perfection of God, 
or with any difficulty whatever in the attempt to recon- 
cile them. If I say, this doctrine cannot be true, because 
I cannot reconcile it with the goodness of God ; it is the 
same as saying, / am an infallible judge, and my opinion 
must stand, though opposed by the declarations of Scrip- 
ture, and the evidence of facts. To take such a position 
of mind would be an effectual bar to conviction, and 
render all reasoning absolutely useless. If we would reg- 
ulate our investigations on this subject by correct princi- 
ples ; we must reject totally every prepossession against 
the doctrine of depravity, arising from a consideration of 



30 



the divine perfections, or from any thing else, and must 
restrict ourselves to this single inquiry, what is true in 
fact^ If the subject is one, on which the Scripture un- 
dertakes to decide ; the question is, what saith the Scrip- 
ture? If experience and observation cast any light on 
the subject; the question is, what do they teach? If 
when we pursue our inquiry, we find, that the Scripture, 
interpreted without the influence of any prepossession, 
and according to just rules, teaches, that man is by na- 
ture unholy ; this must, unhesitatingly, be admitted as a 
certain truth. That God declares it, is proof enough. 
His testimony is an infinitely better foundation for our 
faith, than all our reasonings. If observation and expe- 
rience teach the same truth ; we are to admit it as doub- 
ly confirmed. As to the goodness of God, we know it 
from other evidence. The truth under consideration 
must, then, according to the supposition, be admitted to 
be in reality consistent with the goodness of God, how- 
ever hard it may be for those, who are of yesterday and 
know nothing, to elucidate that consistency. 

The subject under consideration is one, on which we 
are peculiarly liable to judge erroneously, for the obvi- 
ous reason, that we have a deep personal concern in it. 
We are among those, whom the commonly received doc- 
trine arraigns, as polluted and guilty. The doctrine 
touches our character, and our honor. It aims a blow 
at our selfesteem. It disturbs our quiet. The consid- 
eration of this circumstance should excite us to guard 
most vigilantly against that prejudice, discoloring of evi- 
dence, and partial judgment, to which we know every 
man, in such a case, is exposed. 



LETTER V. 

My respected friends, 

The doctrine, which the Orthodox in New England 
hold on the subject, introduced in the last Letter, is 
briefly this ; that men are by nature destitute of holiness ; 
or that they are subjects of an innate moral depravity ; 
or, in other words, that they are from the first inclined to 
evil, and that, while unrenewed, their moral affections 
and actions are wholly wrong. The doctrine, you per- 
ceive, is merely the assertion of a general fact. I shall 
at present consider this fact by itself, entirely unencum- 
bered with any question about the occasion or the mode 
of it. 

It is far from my design to exhibit, in detail, the ar- 
guments, by which this doctrine is proved. I shall at- 
tain my principal object, if 1 succeed in attempting to 
expose a wrong method of reasoning, and contribute any 
thing towards producing in those, who may honor me 
with their attention, a steady desire to know the truth? 
and a disposition to investigate the subject of man's nat- 
ural character, on right principles, and without being 
shackled by unreasonable prepossessions. But the case 
seems to require, that I should lay before you, if not all 
the particular proofs, at least the general topics of ar- 
gument, on which I ground my humbling conclusion. — ■ 
Here then, I contend, and hold myself ready to demon- 
strate, that there is no principle in the science of Phys- 
ics, which is established by evidence more uniform, and 
more conclusive, than the moral depravity of man. i 
speak now of the evidence which is furnished merely by 
experience and observation, without lookino; to the Bi~ 



32 



ble. The appearances of human nature, from infancy to 
old age, and from the fall of Adam to the present time, 
prove a deeprooted and universal disease. The exist- 
ence of this moral disease is practically acknowledged 
by all, who have any concern in the education of chil- 
dren and youth, or who endeavor, in any form, to bring 
the actions of men to conform to the rule of duty. The 
strength of this disease is made evident by all the re- 
straints, which parents are obliged to put upon their chil- 
dren, rulers upon their subjects, and all men, who aim at 
being virtuous, upon themselves. This disorder of our 
nature is indicated by as clear, as various, and as uniform 
symptoms, as ever indicated the existence of a fever, or 
a consumption, in an individual. — The evidence of hu- 
man depravity from this source alone, is so great, that, 
should I reject it as insufficient, I should manifest a 
strength of prejudice, which, I soberly think, no increase 
of evidence could overcome. And I would propose it 
as a serious question, whether, if any of us should stand 
by, as impartial spectators, and see, in another order of 
beings, the same indications of character, which w r e see 
in the human species, we should hesitate a moment to 
pronounce them, depraved. 

But as our views of this subject must depend chiefly 
on revelation, I shall proceed to exhibit, though in a very 
summary way, the principal scripture arguments, on which 
the doctrine of man's universal depravity rests. I shall 
first illustrate the argument, or rather the principle of 
reasoning, from the Old Testament. For this purpose I 
shall take a single passage, which may stand for a multi- 
tude of the same nature. Gen. vi. 5. " And God saw 
that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that 
every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil 
continually" 



33 



It is objected to the argument commonly drawn 
from this text, that it related to mankind in a season 
of uncommon corruption, and not to mankind at large, 
and that it is altogether improper to infer the charac- 
ter of the whole human race from the shocking barbar- 
ity and wickedness, which have been perpetrated in any 
particular age or country. The same objection is thought 
to lie against our reasoning from any of the numerous 
passages in the Old Testament, in which human wicked- 
ness is declared ; namely, that they relate exclusively 
to those who lived at particular times, when iniquity 
prevailed to an uncommon degree, and cannot be appli- 
ed to mankind generally. 

We are now to inquire, whether this objection is 
valid. 

The text quoted from Gen. vi. 5, did indeed relate 
to the corruption of men, who lived before the general 
deluge. But we find substantially the same testimony 
given of the human character, soon after the deluge. 
Gen. viii. 21, " The imagination of man's heart is evil 
from his youth." There are two reasons for consider- 
ing this as relating to mankind universally, or to human 
nature. The first is, that the language is general. " The 
imagination of marts heart is evil ;" not Noah's heart, 
nor the heart of either of his sons particularly ; but marts 
heart, — the heart of the human kind. Thus we are led 
to consider it, as the testimony of God respecting the 
character of our apostate race. The second reason for 
this construction is, that the curse spoken of in the same 
verse related to mankind in all future ages. " I will not 
again curse the ground any more for marts sake ;" that is, I 
will not at any future time. Immediately after the testi- 
mony above quoted, God said, " neither will I again 
smite any more everv living thing, as 1 have done." It 

5 



34 



was said in relation to all future time. The description 
given of man's character must be understood as equally 
extensive; "Jbr" or as it ought, according* to the best 
authorities, and according to the obvious sense of the 
passage, to be rendered, " though the imagination of 
man's heart is evil from his youth." The meaning of 
the whole taken together is plainly this ; that God 
would not destroy the world again by a deluge, as he had 
done, though the character of mankind generally would 
be, as it had been. — History shows that it has been so 
in fact. 

Further to illustrate the force of the argument, from 
the Old Testament, and the weakness of the objection 
against it, I refer my readers to a well known principle of 
science, namely, thai all,ivho belong to the same species, have 
the same nature. We always consider the actions of any 
part, certainly of any considerable part of a species, as 
indicating the character or nature of the whole. And 
why should we doubt the truth of this principle in 
relation to man's moral character, any more than in re- 
lation to his physical properties, or to the properties of 
any other order of creatures ? In all our treatment of 
mankind, and in all our maxims of practical wisdom, we 
admit the principle, that human nature, as to its grand 
moral features, is at all times, and in all circumstances, 
the same. This is implied also in the fact, that the same 
precepts, motives, and restraints, — in a word, the same 
moral discipline has been found suitable and necessary 
in all ages. 

But I do not stop here, but proceed to inquire,, wheth- 
er the New Testament? besides furnishing a new argument 
itself, does not give testimony to th£ soundness of the 
argument from the Old. The Psalmist, in Psalm xiv. liii. 
v. cxl. x. xxxvi. and Isaiah, ch. lix. describe the wicked- 



35 



ness which prevailed in their day. — 44 They are corrupt ; 
they have done abominable works ; there is none 
that doeth good. They are all gone aside, they are 
together become filthy ; there is none that doeth good, 
no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre. Their feet 
run to evil. Their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity ;The 
way of peace they know not;"&c. The objector says, these 
passages described the corruption of the Jews in times of 
great degeneracy, and cannot be considered as a just de- 
scription of mankind generally. But how does the Apostle 
Paul treat the subject f. He takes these same passages, a 
thousand years afterwards, and applies them, as d.e« 
scriptive of the character of Jews and Gentiles. 
Rom. iii. 9, he says, referring to ch. i. and ii., " We 
have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they 
are all under sin ; as it is written"— immediately intro- 
ducing from the Old Testament the texts above quoted s 
as a true account of the character of mankind without 
exception ; then stating the end he had aimed at in mak- 
ing such a disclosure of the human character ; namely, 
44 that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world be- 
come guilty before God ;" and then directly bringing us 
to his final conclusion, that 44 by the deeds of the law 
shall no flesh be justified in his sight." It is a connected 
discourse, — an unbroken chain of reasoning. And unless 
the texts, which the Apostle here cites from the Old Tes- 
tament, are justly applicable to the whole race of man, 
44 both Jews and Gentiles," and, in connexion with the 
preceding part of his Epistle, are actually meant by 
him, to be a description of 44 all the world" 44 no flesh" be- 
ing excepted ; — the whole reasoning of the Apostle is 
without force ; his conclusion is broader than his prem- 
ises ; and the quotations he makes from the Scriptures 
are not only no proofs of what he wishes to establish, but 



36 



have no kind of relation to it. The point he labors to 
establish is, that "both Jews and Gentiles" — that " all the 
ivorld " have such a character, that they cannot be jus- 
tified by law. But what is their character ? — It is that 
which is first described in the preceding part of the 
Epistle, and then in the passages cited from the Old 
Testament. " We have before proved both Jews and 
Gentiles, that they are all under sin, as it is written ; 
There is none that doeth good, no, not one. They are 
all gone out of the way ; they are together become un- 
profitable, 8{c." The Apostle manifestly cites these texts, 
for the very purpose of describing, still more particularly 
than he had done, the character of " all the ivorld" — It 
might indeed be thought from the first part of verse 19, 
" whatsover the law saith, it saith to them who are un- 
der the law," that the Apostle meant to apply what he 
had just before said, to Jews only. But this would hard- 
ly agree with the scope of the passage, which was to 
establish a general truth respecting " all the world" 
Besides, the first part of v. 19 will easily admit a construc- 
tion perfectly corresponding with the scope of the whole 
passage. The Apostle would prove that all men are 
under sin. The Jews would naturally make an exception 
in their own favor. He tells them that there can be no 
exception ; that what he has quoted from the law, that is, 
from their own Scriptures, must certainly relate to Jews, 
as well as to Gentiles. — The quotations cannot relate to 
Jews exclusively of Gentiles, because that would not agree 
with the manner, already noticed, in which the quotations 
are introduced ; — " We have proved botli Jews and Gen- 
tiles, that they are all under sin; as it is written &lc." 
Nor does it so obviously agree with the conclusion v. 19, 
which relates to " all the world." Besides, it is difficult 
not to believe that the writer of some of the Psalms 



37 



quoted, particularly of the xiv, extended his views beyond 
his own nation, though he undoubtedly referred to that 
primarily, and in a special sense. When he introduces 
that description of wickedness, which is quoted by the 
x\postle, his language is general. " The Lord looked 
down from heaven, upon the children of men, to see if 
there were any that did understand." The Psalmist 
then proceeds to give a description, not, one would think, 
of the posterity of Abraham solely, but of the children of 
men, the human race, and says, they are all gone aside, — 
But we shall come ultimately to the same conclusion, if 
we admit that the passages were originally intended by 
the Psalmist to relate merely to his own nation. For if 
such a character belonged to that highly favored nation, 
it must of course have belonged to the rest of the world. 
So the Apostle decides when, many ages after, he 
attributes that description of character to all the 
world. On the same principle the passages quoted 
by him are applicable to us, as well as to those who liv- 
ed in the time of Paul, or of David ; as applicable to us, 
as what the Apostle says respecting justification, salva- 
tion, duty, or any thing else. 

This manner of quoting texts from the Old Testa- 
ment is not peculiar to Paul. We find frequent exam- 
ples of it in the instructions of Christ himself. The 
Prophet Isaiah, chap. xxix. 13, had given the following 
description of the hypocrisy of the people, who were con- 
temporary with him ; viz. " that they drew near to God 
with their mouth, and honored him with their lips, but 
had removed their hearts far from him." Jesus quoted 
this passage as applicable to the Jews in his day. " Well 
did Esaias prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 
&c." In the same manner Christ repeatedly quoted Isa. 



38 



vi. 9, 10, as a true description of the obstinate impiety 
of those, who rejected his gospel. 

Now this manner of quoting and reasoning from Scrip- 
ture, so often employed both by Christ and his apostles, 
clearly involves the principle, which I stated in answer to 
the objection ; viz. that human nature, in all ages and cir- 
cumstances, is, as. to its grand moral features , the same, 
and that the dispositions and actions, which mankind at 
any time exhibit, are real indications of what belongs to 
the nature of man universally. Unless this principle is 
admitted, how can the Apostle be justified in making such 
a use as he does, of his citations from the Old Testa- 
ment ? — And to bring the subject nearer home, how can 
we make use of any thing which was said of the charac- 
ter of man, either in the Old Testament or the New, as 
appertaining to those who live at the present day ? In- 
deed, how can any of the declarations of the Bible, all 
of which were made so many ages ago, be of any use 
to us, except to gratify curiosity ? Whether, therefore, 
we consider the nature of the case, or the reasoning of 
the Apostle in Rom. iii. ; are we not warranted to re- 
ceive, whatever* the Bible in any part affirms respecting 
the dispositions or conduct of men, as applicable, sub- 
stantially, to men in all ages ? If we are not, what can 
we say to vindicate the Apostle ? If we are, then 
the text I first quoted from Genesis, and those texts 
which are quoted from the Psalms in Rom. iii, and oth- 
er similar texts in the Old Testament, do all illustrate 
the character, which now belongs to man. And when 
we read in the Bible, or elsewhere, the highest descrip- 
tion of human wickedness in the old world, in Sodom, in 
Canaan, in Jerusalem, in Greece, Rome, or India, or of 
the wickedness of individuals, as Pharaoh, Saul, Jerobo- 
am, Judas, or the Cassars ; it is perfectly just and natu- 



39 



ral for us to reflect, such is human nature ; — such is man. 
So that Orthodox writers, though they may not, in all in- 
stances, have attended sufficiently to the groundwork of 
their argument, do in fact reason in an unexceptionable 
manner, when they undertake to show what human na- 
ture is, from the description which is given of the wick- 
edness of man in the Old Testament ; and the objection 
to this reasoning, which I stated above, and which is, 
briefly, the objection of Dr. Turnbull and Dr. John Tay- 
lor, cannot be considered as valid. 

Let me detain your attention a few moments, while 
I hint at the confirmation, which may be given to the 
general principle, asserted above, by an appeal to the 
sober convictions of men. They who are in the habit of 
comparing their moral affections and conduct with the 
perfect law of God, will have no difficulty in acknowl- 
edging, that they find, in the various representations of 
human depravity, contained in the Old Testament, a true 
picture of themselves. I say not that they are conscious 
of having committed sinful actions in the same form, or 
indulged sinful passions in the same degree, with all those? 
whose crimes are recorded in the Bible. This is not 
the case. But they are conscious of having in their 
hearts a wrong bias, a want of what the divine law re- 
quires, of the same nature, with that moral depravation? 
which has been exhibited by the greatest sinners. The 
sacred writers impute to various societies and individu- 
als, pride, selfishness, idolatry, covetousness, impurity, 
revenge, falsehood, blasphemy. Have we not discover- 
ed in ourselves the root of all these vices ? Should we 
not be liable to actual excess in every one of them, if we 
should be freed from restraints, and should follow, with- 
out any counteracting influence, the desires which natu- 
rally spring up in our hearts ? And have not the great- 



40 



est proficients in self-government and holiness always 
been the most ready to make this humiliating confession ? 
Even some of the heathen, who made serious attempts to 
improve their own character, were forced to acknowl- 
edge that the disorder of their nature was too stubborn 
to be subdued by them, without help from above. 

It is certainly nothing conclusive against the princi- 
ple contended for, that some men can be found, who are 
not sensible of its truth in relation to themselves. This 
may easily be accounted for, without in the least inval- 
idating the principle. For they may be altogether in- 
attentive to what passes in their own minds, and so may 
be ignorant of themselves; or if they are in some mea- 
sure attentive to the operations of their own minds, they 
may fix their eye upon some of the wrong standards of 
duty which are set up in the world, and so may judge 
incorrectly. It is surely no uncommon thing for men to 
be insensible of the faults of their character, especially 
of the hidden affections of their hearts. This insensibil- 
ity, so frequently described in the Scriptures, is a mat- 
ter of common observation, and has always been regard- 
ed, as one of the greatest hindrances to the salutary in- 
fluence of divine truth. 

The argument from the Old Testament might be 
extended to great length, comprising all the positive de- 
clarations there made, and all the examples there exhib- 
ited, of human wickedness ; all the confessions both of 
saints and sinners ; all the means employed to subdue the 
moral corruption of men and hold them back from sin, 
and every thing else, which showed formerly, and which, 
consequently, always shows, what is in man. They who 
read the Old Testament with such views as the Apos- 
tles entertained respecting it, will be constantly improv- 
ing their acquaintance w 7 ith themselves, — their knowl- 



41 



edge of their own moral degradation, and their desire 
after that gracious influence of the Holy Spirit, which 
renews and exalts the soul. 



LETTER VL 

My RESPECTED FRIENDS, 

In the last Letter, I confined myself almost entirely 
to the establishment of a general principle, and to the 
proof which, according to that principle, may be drawn 
from the Old Testament, in support of the doctrine of 
man's moral depravity. I might also refer to declara- 
tions which are general or universal, as Jeremiah xvii. 9, 
" The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperate- 
ly wicked ; who can know it ?" " The heart" not of any 
man, or any society of men in particular ; but of man 
universally. The next verse confirms this sense. " I the 
Lord search the heart — the same heart, as the one 
spoken of in v. 9 ; so that if, when the Prophet says, the 
Lord searches the heart, we are to understand him as 
meaning, that the Lord searches the heart universally, or 
the heart of every human being ; then also, when in the clos- 
est connexion with this, he says, the heart is deceitful and 
wicked, we must understand him as meaning that the 
heart universally, or the heart of every human being is de- 
ceitful and wicked. — This is the only sense which any 
man can give the text, v. 9, who attends to its connex- 
ion with the following verse, or considers what language 
we commonly use to express a general or universal pro- 
position. Another passage containing a universal propo- 
sition of like character, is found in Eccles. ix. 3. " The 
heart of the sons of men is full of evil." 
6 



42 



But in the New Testament every thing is invested 
with clearer light. Here we find evidence, exhibited 
in many different forms, that man, as a species, that the 
human kind, is sunk in sin, and while unrenewed, entire- 
ly destitute of holiness, and unfit for heaven. This evi- 
dence I shall now lay before you, though it must be with 
great brevity, and in reference only to a few passages. 

The first passage, to which I would call your atten- 
tion, is found in the discourse of Jesus with Nicodemus, 
John iii. 1 — 7. This conversation took place near the 
beginning of Christ's ministry. About four thousand 
years had passed away, from the fall of man. Those 
four thousand years had furnished no small evidence of 
the human character. The corruption and violence of 
the old world had been seen. And notwithstanding the 
tremendous purgation, which the world underwent by 
the general deluge, it had been seen, that the new race, 
descending from righteous Noah, pursued the same 
downward course with the generations before the flood. 
The same had been the case with the posterity of Abra- 
ham. Although various and powerful means had been 
used to restrain men from wickedness and induce them 
to serve God, they had in every nation, and in every age, 
shown themselves prone to evil. Jesus knew what dis- 
play had been made of the human character in every 
period of the world. He knew what was in man. The 
grand result of what his all searching eye had seen, and 
then saw, of the affections and conduct of the human race, 
he expressed to Nicodemus; " Except a man be born 
again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." The moral 
renovation here spoken of, is represented as necessary 
for all men. Eav (ivj <ti$ yevvYidri avodsv. It is said of 
any one. The sense is, that no man, no human being, who 
is not the subject of this renovation, can be a partaker of 



43 



the benefits of Christ's kingdom. The necessity of this 
renovation, as appears afterwards, arises from the char- 
acter which man possesses, in consequence of his natural 
birth. Of course, it is necessary for every child of Ad- 
am. " That which is born of the flesh, is flesh" " By 
flesh" says Rosenmuller, with evident propriety, and in 
agreement with commentators generally, " is meant the 
nature of man, — man with all his moral imperfection, 
subject to the dominion of his bodily appetites. And 
he who is born of parents, who have this moral imper- 
fection, is like his parents." All the children of men are 
here represented as having, by their very birth, a moral 
nature, which renders them incapable of enjoying the 
blessings of the Messiah's kingdom, unless they are bom 
again. This interpretation is confirmed by all those 
texts, in which the word tfap£, or GoLpxixog, flesh, or flesh- 
ly, is used to express the opposite of that -which is spiritu- 
al or holy. The metaphorical expression, being born again, 
must denote a moral change, because it is a change that 
fits men for a moral or spiritual kingdom. If we view 
this passage in connexion with those, which represent 
repentance and conversion, as necessary to prepare men 
for Christ's kingdom, we shall see that being bofn again 
denotes a change of the same general character with 
repentance and conversion. It is then clear, that this 
passage of Scripture, interpreted according to just rules, 
contains the following sentiment ; — that all men, without 
exception, are by nature, or in consequence of their natural 
birth, in such a state of moral impurity, as disqualifies 
them for the enjoyments of heaven, unless they are re- 
newed by the Holy Spirit. 

Rom. v. 12. " Wherefore as by one man sin entered 
into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed 
upon all men, for that all have sinned." Although this 



44 



text must be allowed to be, in some respects, very 
obscure ; two things are perfectly clear. 1. That the 
Apostle considered sin, as the cause of death, or the rea- 
son why God sent into the world the evils involved in 
the word death. 2. That as sin is the cause of death, the 
extent of the one may be measured by the extent of the 
other. Determine how far death extends, and you de- 
termine how far sin extends. If a part of the human 
species die, a part are sinners. If all die, all are sinners. 
" Death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." 
E<£> <5, according to the judgment of the most eminent 
critics, and the use of the phrase elsewhere in the New 
Testament, means the same as oWt, eo quod, quia,— -for 
that, or because. The Vulgate renders it, in quo, in 
whom ; from which some have thought the Apostle 
meant to assert, that it is in Adam that all men have 
sinned, so that his transgression becomes theirs by im- 
putation. But 1 see nothing in the passage, or in the 
nature of the subject, which can justify such an inter- 
pretation. 

On this particular point, our opinions have been of- 
ten misrepresented. We are said to hold, that God 
dooms a whole race of innocent creatures to destruction, or 
considers them all as deserving destruction,for the sin of one 
man. Now when I examine the respectable writings of 
the earlier Calvinists generally, on the subject of origi- 
nal sin> I find nothing which resembles such a statement 
as this. It is true, exceptionable language has in some 
instances been used, and opinions, which I should think 
erroneous, have sometimes been entertained on this sub- 
ject. But the Orthodox in New England, at the pres- 
ent day, are not chargeable with the same fault. The 
imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, in any sense, 
which those words naturally and properly convey, is a 



45 



doctrine which Ave do not believe. If any shall say, as 
Stapfer does, who refers to Vitringa and other reformed 
divines, as agreeing with him, — that " for God to give 
Adam a posterity like himself, and to impute his sin to 
them, is one and the same thing I should not object 
to such an imputation. For I see not how any man, who 
has a serious regard to scripture, or to fact, or considers 
what are the laws of our nature, can hesitate to admit, 
that God has given Adam a posterity like himself. 

But the word imputation has, in my view, been im- 
properly used in relation to this subject, and has occa- 
sioned unnecessary perplexity. In scripture, the word, 
impute, signifies uniformly, if I mistake not, charging or 
reckoning to a man that which is his own attribute or 
act. Every attempt, which has been made, to prove 
that God ever imputes to man any sinful disposition or 
act, which is not strictly his own, has, in my judgment, 
failed of success. And as it is one object of these Let- 
ters, to make you acquainted with the real opinions of 
the Orthodox in New England ; I would here say, with 
the utmost frankness, that we are not perfectly satisfied 
with the language used on this subject, in the Assem- 
bly's Catechism. Though we hold that Catechism, tak- 
en as a whole, in the highest estimation ; we could not, 
with a good conscience, subscribe to every expression it 
contains in relation to the doctrine of original sin. Hence 
it is common for us, when we declare our assent to the 
Catechism, to do it with an express or implied restric- 
tion. We receive the Catechism generally, as containing 
a summary of the principles of Christianity. But that 
the sinfulness of our natural, fallen state consists, in any 
measure, " in the guilt of Adam's first sin," is what we 
cannot admit, without more convincing evidence. But 
we think we have the best reason for believing that, in 



46 



respect of character, there is a connexion between Adam 
and the whole human race. Nor do we, as the Author 
of this Sermon seems to think, rest this opinion on " a 
few slight hints about the fall of our first parents," but 
upon the plain, and reiterated declaration of the Apostle 
Paul, Rom. v. Notwithstanding all the difficulty with 
which this passage is attended, one point is plain. The 
writer makes it known, in different forms of expression, 
and with the greatest perspicuity, that a connexion re- 
ally exists between the father of the human race, and 
all his children. Unless Adam's , transgression had, in 
the plan of the divine administration, such a relation to 
his posterity, that in consequence of it, they were con- 
stituted sinners, and subjected to death and all other 
sufferings, as penal evils ; the Apostle reasons inconclu- 
sively, and entirely misses the end he aims at, in his com- 
parison of Adam and Christ. Nothing can be more ob- 
vious, according to the common rules of interpretation, 
than that he meant to assert this connexion; so that, if 
no such connexion exists, he had the misfortune to pub- 
lish a mistake. 

Though it would not be consistent with the plan of 
these Letters to collect the various passages of the 
New Testament, which prove what man's native charac- 
ter is; I cannot willingly leave the subject without ad- 
verting again to the manner, in which the Apostle Paul 
was accustomed to treat it. From a great multitude of 
pertinent texts, I take one. Eph. ii. 3. " Among whom 
also we all had our conversation, &c. and were by nature 
children of wrath, even as others." He says this of believ- 
ing Jews, as is evident from the beginning and the close 
of the verse, in connexion with the context. To be chil- 
dren of wrath, according to Schleusner, Rosenmuller, 
Koppe, and others, is to be icorthy of punishment, posnis 



47 



divinis digni. To be children of wrath, Qvtisi, by nature, 
is to be born so, or to be so in consequence of our birth, 
or in consequence of our natural disposition. " Ob natura- 
lem nostram indolem." See Schleusner's Lex. on this text. 
Compare Gal. ii. 15, " We who are Jews by nature," i. e* 
born Jews, or Jews by birth Schleusner says that, accord- 
ing to the whole scope of the discourse,Ep.ii. fyvGig, nature, 
signifies the state of those who had not been instructed and 
reformed by the christian religion. True. But why was 
that state called fyvCig, nature ?— a word which points us 
to our origin, nativity, birth. — We shall see the reason ^ 
of this, if we compare this text with the passage, quoted 
above, from John iii. " That which is born of the flesh, is 
flesh;" a declaration fairly capable of no meaning but 
this, that man possesses by his natural birth a depraved 
disposition, corrupt desires, as the word flesh signifies in 
the text now under consideration, Eph. ii. 3, and in every 
other place, where it relates to the moral character or 
conduct of men. That which is born of the flesh, or 
that which man has by nature, is such a temper or 
character, that according to the Apostle, he is a child of 
wrath ;—such, according to the representation of Christ, 
that he must be the subject of a new birth by the spirit, 
or he cannot see the kingdom of God. — This must be 
the meaning of these two passages taken together, un- 
less we are driven by our dislike of the doctrine con- 
tained in them, to violate the plainest rules of interpre- 
tation. If similar phraseology should be found on any 
other subject ; if, for example, it should be said, that 
which is born of human parents is human, or that which 
is born of man is frail and liable to decay, — and that eve- 
ry man is by nature the subject of various appetites and 
passions ; who would not understand these phrases, as 
flenoting what man is, or what he has, by his birth, or 



48 



what is inbred, or native ? Or if language should be us- 
ed by an inspired writer expressing in the same way, 
that which is opposite to what we understand by this 
text ; that is, if it should be said, that the children of men 
are by nature pure, — or that what is born of human par- 
ents is virtuous and holy; would not our opposers think 
such a passage a proof sufficiently clear, of the native pu- 
rity, the original, inbred virtue of manf And would they 
not be greatly " amazed " at the attempt of any man to 
put a different sense upon it ? 

That the human species is universally, while unre- 
newed, in a state of entire moral corruption, is implied 
in the invariable practice of the Apostles, wherever 
they went, to call upon men, according to their divine 
commission,— " upon all men every where to repent" The 
duty, and necessity of repentance, which denotes a radical 
moral change, was inculcated on all, to whom the Gos- 
pel was proclaimed. If, in any part of the world, an 
Apostle found human beings, he instantly took it for 
granted, that they were children of disobedience, and 
children of wrath, and treated them accordingly, — just 
as he took it for granted that they were mortal. — All 
the provisions of the Gospel are adapted to those, who 
are polluted and guilty. If any can be found, whether old 
or young, who are not the subjects of moral depravity 
and ruin, they are evidently excluded from any concern 
with those provisions. — When we pursue the history of 
the christian religion through the days of the Apostles, 
we find wherever it produced its genuine effects, it pro- 
duced repentance and fruits meet for repentance ; — it form- 
ed men, whoever they were, to a new character ; so 
that it became universally true, that if any man was a 
Christian, he was a new creature, or in the language of 
of Christ, was born again. We find no instance of the 



49 



contrary. The character, which St. Paul gives of the 
followers of Christ, implies that they had, without excep- 
tion, been renewed. He often turns their thoughts to 
their former state of degradation and ruin. He paints 
that state in the strongest colors. He illustrates it by 
the most striking metaphors. He reminds believers, 
that before their regeneration, they were servants of sin, 
dead in trespasses and sins, enemies to God, impure, 
earthly. He speaks of this moral corruption, not as a 
fact, which was local, or of limited extent, but univer- 
sal. And accordingly, he makes it a part of the general 
system of Christian doctrine. 

There is a difficulty, I well know, in applying the 
description, given by the Apostle, of the character, which 
the first converts to Christianity originally possessed, 
to men of the present day, whose exterior character 
has been formed under the influence of a Christian educa- 
tion. But this difficulty disappears, when we attend to 
the principle, which the Apostle recognises in his rea- 
soning, Rom. hi, and which I have already endeavored 
to illustrate ; namely ; that, whatever difference may 
exist, as to outward character, all men have the same 
natural disposition, the same original ingredients of moral 
character. In conformity to this principle, we pass by 
what is merely regular and amiable in the eye of the 
world ; We pass by all the diversities of exterior charac- 
ter, and look to the grand moral affections of the heart, 
in which all are alike. Agreeably to this view, and 
agreeably to what our Savior says as to sin in the heart, 
Matt. v. 21, 22, 28, it would appear that, although men 
have not openly, or by formal acts, made themselves 
idolaters, thieves, adulterers, and murderers ; they do 5 
in a greater or less degree, possess those very passions, 
or desires, which, if indulged and acted out, would make 
them so. And thus we shall have the happiness of 
7 



50 



agreeing with the Author of the sermon now before us, 
who in another ordination sermon, gives the following 
just description of the character of the human species. — 
" To whom is the minister of the gospel sent to preach ? 
To men of upright minds, disposed to receive and obey 
the truth, which guides to heaven? Ah no! He is cal- 
led to guide a wandering flock ; — he is sent to a world of 
sinners, in whose hearts lurk idolatry, sensuality, pride, 
and every corruption"* 

Men, who assert the native purity of human beings, 
insist much upon the harmlessness and tender sensibilities 
of little children, before they are corrupted by example, 
and also upon the existence of what are called the natu- 
ral affections in mankind generally. But how can those 
things, which man possesses in common with irrational 
animals, or those, which necessarily appertain to his pres- 
ent mode of existence, and which remain the same, 
whatever character he sustains, be considered as evi- 
dence of the purity of his moral nature ? 

The attempt, often made, to account for the univer- 
sal prevalence of sin, by the influence of example, with- 
out supposing any native bias to evil, cannot afford satis- 
faction. For we are still pressed with the difficulty of 
accounting for it, that children, whose nature is untaint- 
ed with moral evil, should be disposed to imitate bad 
examples, rather than good ones, — to neglect their duty, 
rather than perform it ; and that all discreet parents and 
instructers, who have any familiar acquaintance with the 
youthful mind, should be led to frame their whole sys- 
tem of instruction and discipline, upon the principle, that 
children are prone to evil, inclined to go astray. Any 
plan of education, whether domestic or public, which 
should overlook this principle, and involve the oppo- 
site one of man's native purity, would be regarded by 
* Serm. at the Ordination of the Rev. J, Codman. 



51 



all men of sober experience and sober judgment, as ro- 
mantic and dangerous. 

But I must bring my remarks on this subject to a 
close. My object was to show that we receive the doc- 
trine of man's native corruption upon its own proper ev- 
idence, as we receive any other truth ; and that it is to- 
tally unphilosophical and unscriptural, to suffer this evi- 
dence to be obscured or perplexed by the inquiry, how 
the doctrine can be reconciled with the moral perfec- 
tion of God. Both the moral perfection of God, and 
the doctrine of human depravity, rest upon evidence, 
which is, in our view, perfectly conclusive. We believe 
them both, and believe them entirely consistent with 
each other. Indeed, we see no peculiar difficulty at- 
tending their consistency. If any one asserts, that our 
doctrine of man's depravity and the moral perfection of 
God are inconsistent with each other ; it will behoove 
him to show, in what respects, and for what reasons, 
they are inconsistent. He ought to show too, how it is 
any more inconsistent with the goodness of God, for men 
to be corrupt in the earliest period of their existence, than 
in any subsequent period ; or for all men to be corrupt, 
than for any part of them ; or for men to be corrupt 
in a higher degree, than in a lower degree. If, from a 
consideration of the divine goodness, or for other reasons, 
any should persist in denying the doctrine of man's na- 
tive depravity ; they will easily see what a task they 
take upon themselves. They must first make it appear, 
by a thorough investigation, conducted in conformity to 
just and allowed principles, that none of the texts of 
Scripture, which I have cited, and no others of a similar 
character, contain the doctrine. In addition to this, they 
must satisfactorily account for all the corruption and 
wickedness, which man has exhibited, from childhood tc 



62 



old age, m all nations and circumstances, and in opposi- 
tion to all the means which have been used to restrain 
him, without admitting that his nature is prone to evil ; — 
a task, I should think, of the same kind, with that of ac- 
counting for all the phenomena of the natural world, by 
which the Newtonian philosophy proves the law of 
gravitation, without admitting that law. 



LETTER VIL 

My respected friends, 

Unitarian writers generally, as well as the Author of 
the Sermon before us, have appeared to think, that the 
commonly received doctrine of Election is totally incom- 
patible with the goodness of God, and that our believ- 
* ing that doctrine is proof sufficient, that we do not be- 
lieve in the divine goodness. 

To this subject, though not a very popular one, I 
hope you will attend with that candor and unprejudic- 
ed judgment, without which, as you must have often 
seen in others, all inquiry after the truth is in vain. 
Against the doctrine of the Reformed Churches, now 
to be considered, there are strong prepossessions. And 
I am free to acknowledge, that Orthodox writers and 
preachers of high repute, but deficient in judgment, 
have, in some instances, exhibited the doctrine in a 
manner, which has given too much occasion for these 
prepossessions ;— and too much occasion for this Au- 
thor, and many others, to think that the doctrine is in- 
consistent with the moral perfection of God. 1 wish 
you, therefore, distinctly to understand, that it is not the 
doctrine of Election, as stated by some of its injudicious 



53 



advocates, or as understood by its opposers, that I would 
now defend. 

This subject, as it respects a principle of the divine 
administration, is not only a very important one, but one 
which obviously involves questions of difficult and pro- 
found investigation. It respects the administration of a 
Being, possessed of infinite understanding, and infinite 
holiness, — a Being, to whom we have no right to dic- 
tate, and of whom we have no cause to complain, — a 
Being, before whose supreme majesty, we are nothing, 
and less than nothing. Though I have a heart as lofty, 
and vain, and presumptuous as others ; yet when I bring 
this subject before me, and consider that I have under- 
taken to inquire respecting the administration of the 
eternal, incomprehensible God, my Sovereign, and my 
Judge, — I stand in awe ; I check my presumption; and 
resolve to hold my mind in a humble, docile frame, lest 
I should incur that appalling rebuke of the Apostle, — 
" Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God ?" I 
bid myself remember, that neither my opinions, nor 
those of any mortal, are entitled to regard, any farther 
than they agree with the truths of revelation, and that, 
whatever my opinions or wishes may be, those truths 
will remain the same. I would devoutly cherish the im- 
pression that no opinions can be right, which would make 
any part of Scripture unwelcome to me ; and that the 
greatest dislike of men, which may be incurred by de- 
fending the doctrines of revelation, is not worthy to be 
named, in comparison with the frown of my final Judge, 
for rejecting those doctrines. 

It is generally acknowledged by Christians, that no 
opinion or reasoning respecting the divine character, or 
administration, can be relied upon, except that which 
rests on the declarations of Scripture. On this subject 



64 



especially, not the least respect is due to any argument, 
however plausible, which, on careful inquiry, is found 
contrary to what God has taught us in his word, or to 
what takes place in his providence. The object of our 
present inquiry is then very simple* If it were put to 
my natural reason to judge, by its own light, respecting 
what is called the doctrine of Election ; my judgment 
might agree with the judgment of those, who reject the 
doctrine. If the question were, what difficulties attend 
the doctrine ; I might perhaps bring forward as many 
as others. And if the question were, whether the doc- 
trine, as generally represented by its opposers, and even 
by the Author of this Sermon, is according to the word 
of God ; I should answer, as they do, in the negative. 
But the proper question is, what saith the Scripture^ 
What does God teach us, as to the manner in which he 
designates those, who are to be heirs of salvation ? 

I shall not go largely into a consideration of the evi- 
dence from Scripture, in support of the doctrine now un- 
der consideration ; but shall merely proceed far enough 
to show, that we do not believe the doctrine without 
evidence, and that our believing it is not a proof of our 
denying the moral perfection of God, but a consequence 
pf our reverence for his word. 

Proof of the doctrine of Election, 

I find that Jesus Christ often speaks of a part of man- 
kind, as being given him of the Father. This he does 
several times in John xvii. As an example of the whole, 
verse 2 may be taken, " As thou hast given him pow- 
er over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as 
many as thou hast given him." The sense is, that the 
Father has given to Christ a part of the human race, and 
that those, who have thus been given to Christ, are the per* 
sons ivho shall have eternal life. As to the meaning of the 



55 



passage, the only question that deserves a moment's 
consideration, is, whether it relates to all who shall 
finally be saved, or merely to those who were disciples 
of Christ at that time. — In favor of the larger sense, 
there are several arguments. 

1. Christ is here speaking of his general commission 
and work, as a Savior. He tells us, that the Father 
has given him power over all flesh, without tho least in- 
timation of any limits. And for what purpose was he 
endued with this extensive power ? " That he might 
give eternal life to as many as the Father had given him" 
His work, as a Savior, and the power committed to 
him did in fact extend, not merely to those who were 
then his disciples, but to the whole number of the re- 
deemed. But why should he speak of his power in this 
extensive sense, if he meant that the end to be accom- 
plished by it should be understood in so limited a sense ? 
No limits are suggested. Why then should we not 
understand the phrase, " as many as thou hast given 
him," to denote all, to whom Christ will actually give 
eternal life ? 

2. The context shows, that Christ, in the prayer 
here recited, had his eye upon all, who should be saved 
in future ages. v. 20. " Neither pray I for these alone, 
but for them also, who shall believe on me through their 
word." There can be no reason to doubt, that he had 
as large an extent of views in the second verse, as in the 
twentieth. 

3. This interpretation receives additional confirma- 
tion from a similar passage in John vi. 37, 39. " All that 
the Father giveth me, shall come to me ; and him that 
cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out. — And this is 
the Father's will who sent me, that of all which he 
hath given me 1 should lose nothing, but should raise it 



56 



up again at the last day." Those who are given to 
Christ, and those who shall come to Christ, are here 
identified. Indeed, the passage plainly signifies, that, in 
every case, a person's being given to Christ secures his 
coming to Christ ; a circumstance which fixes one point ; 
namely ; that those, who will finally be saved, are giv- 
en to Christ before they come to him. — From v. 39, we 
have additional proof that, when Christ speaks of those, 
who were given him of the Father, he includes the 
whole number that shall be saved. " This is the Fa- 
ther's will, — that of all which he hath given me, I should 
lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day." 
The work of Christ, as a Savior, doubtless extends 
alike to all, who shall be raised to eternal life at the 
last day. But this work of his is here represented as 
relating to those, whom the Father had given him. 
From the whole it seems evident, that when Christ 
speaks so familiarly, in John xvii, of those who were giv- 
en him, he refers to all who shall be saved. 

But even on supposition, that the language related 
to those only, who were then his disciples ; the argu- 
ment would still be the same, because the principle 
would be the same. There could be no reason, why 
the Father should give Christ those, who were sav- 
ed by him during his life, and not those who should be 
saved afterwards; and no reason, why being given to 
Christ should stand in certain connexion with salvation 
in one case, and not in the other. 

If we should examine other texts of similar import, 
we should find still more abundant proof of what is so 
evident from the two passages above cited ; namely ; 
that the Father has given a portion of mankind to Christ, 
in a peculiar sense, and in distinction from others, and that 
Christ will actually bestow eternal life on all who have been 
thus given him* I see not how any man can give a dif- 



57 



ferent sense to the texts alluded to, without being con- 
scious that he is driven to it, by his prepossession against 
this doctrine. 

Pursuing the single inquiry, what the scriptures teach, 
we find several passages, which speak, with a re- 
markable emphasis, of a purpose and choice of God re- 
specting those, who will be saved. My limits will allow 
me to consider only two. 

The apostle says to the Ephesians, ch. i. 3—11, 
" Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings 
in heavenly things in Christ ; according as he hath chosen 
us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should 
be holy, fyc. ; having predestinated us unto the adoption of 
children by Jesus Christ to himself according to the good 
pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, 
— in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being 
predestinated according to the purpose of him, who worketh 
all things after the counsel of his own will" Here we are 
taught, that God has a purpose, choice, will, and good 
pleasure, respecting those who are saved. It is such a 
purpose, that when men are saved, they are saved ac- 
cording to it. It is a purpose or choice, which was in the 
mind of God, before they were saved, and before they ex- 
isted. They were " chosen in Christ before the founda- 
tion of the world." And it is a purpose, which does not 
rest upon any personal merit in those, who are its ob- 
jects. The purpose or choice is here repeatedly repre- 
sented as a matter of grace, as according to the riches of 
grace ; — exactly in agreement with other passages, which 
exclude all works of righteousness from having any concern 
in this subject. 

The other passage I shall particularly notice, is 
Rom. ix, 1 1 — 24. In verses 1 1, 12, 13, it is said ; " For 

8 



58 



the children;'? that is, Jacob and Esau, " being not yet 
born, neither having done any good or evil, that the pur- 
pose of God according to election might stand, not of 
works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, the 
elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob 
have I loved, but Esau have I hated." It is beyond all 
doubt in my mind, that this interesting passage was 
meant to be understood in a national sense ; that is, that 
they respected Jacob and Esau, not personally, but as 
the heads of two tribes or nations ; or, in other words, 
that they respected those two nations. It is apparent 
too, that what is quoted from Moses, v. 15 ; "I will 
have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have 
compassion on whom I will have compassion," was said 
originally respecting a part of the Israelitish nation in 
the wilderness. But it is equally clear, that the apos- 
tle makes use of the divine conduct respecting the pos- 
terity of Jacob and Esau, mentioned in v. 11, 12, 13, and 
the declaration of God, quoted in v. 15, as illustrative of 
a general principle in the divine administration. This 
principle is brought into view, v. 16, as an inference from 
what preceded. " So then it is not of him that willeth, 
nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth 
mercy." It is deduced, as a general principle, from 
what God said respecting the offending Israelites in a 
particular case. This mode of reasoning is repeated 
immediately after. First, a passage is quoted from the 
Old Testament; v. 17 ; " For the scripture saith unto 
Pharaoh, even for this same cause have I raised thee up, 
that I might show my power in thee, and that my name 
might be declared throughout all the earth." From 
this declaration of God respecting a single individual, 
a general conclusion is drawn, v. 18. 44 Therefore hath 
he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he 



m 

will he hardeneth." This is laid down by the apostle ; 
as a general principle of the div ine administration. And 
it is this general principle, that is asserted in the ortho- 
dox doctrine of Election, or sovereign grace. 

Now take a brief view of this remarkable passage. 
What is it that the apostle takes so much pains to es- 
tablish? Evidently this, that God makes distinctions 
among men, or bestows peculiar favors on some, and not 
on others, pro libitu, pro arbitrio, according to his own 
will, or pleasure* How does he prove this? From 
particular instances of the divine conduct, as made known 
by the Scriptures. It is for this purpose he quotes what 
God said respecting his treatment of Jacob and Esau, 
and of Pharaoh. Taken in any other view, the quota- 
tions have no relation to the subject, and the reasoning 
of the apostle from them is nugatory. 

But how can the apostle infer a general truth 
from particular facts ? How can he infer what 
the divine purpose and conduct will generally be, re- 
specting the higher distinctions to be made among men 
in the concerns of religion, from what they were towards 
a few indivrduals in regard to other distinctions ? — Plain- 
ly, because, as he evidently understands it, the same 
principle is involved in both. The truth asserted in v. 
16, is general " It is not of him that willeth, nor of 
him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." 
The sense is, that, in relation to the subject under con- 
sideration, "nothing is effected by the efforts of man, but 
that every thing depends on the mercy of God.f This 
general truth is inferred from what God said respecting 
his conduct in a particular case, because that case im- 

* See Schleusner T Rosenmuller, and other Commentators, on the 
place. 

t Rosenmuller. 



60 



plied the same principle. What objection can lie against 
this argument ? If God proceeded in the manner de- 
scribed, in his treatment of two nations, that is, made a 
distinction between them by his own sovereign purpose 
and act ; he may surely proceed in the same manner 
towards individuals. And if he has actually proceeded 
in this manner and on this principle, in his treatment of 
particular individuals ; why may he not proceed in the 
same manner in his treatment of others generally ? That 
the Apostle reasons thus, is undeniable. 

It may be made still more certain, that we under- 
stand this passage correctly, by looking at the objection, 
which the Apostle supposed would be made. " Thou 
wilt say then unto me, why doth he yet find fault? for 
who hath resisted his will ?" v. 19. The nature of the 
objection, proves, that it related to that very doctrine of 
God's sovereign purpose and agency, which makes a 
a part of our faith. It is the very objection, which is 
still made against that doctrine. The nature of the ob- 
jection shows the nature of the doctrine, against which 
it was urged. And the nature of the answer, v. 20 — 24, 
shows, still more plainly, what was the nature of the ob- 
jection, and the nature of the doctrine objected to. It is ex- 
actly the answer, which it is suitable to give to one, who 
urges just such an objection as this, against the Orthodox 
doctrine of God's sovereign purpose and agency. Such a 
striking correspondence would, in any other case, and 
must in this, be considered, as affording very satisfactory 
evidence of the scope and meaning of the discourse. 

There is one more important inquiry respecting this 
passage ; and that is, whether that general principle of 
the divine administration, which the Apostle establishes, 
relates to the eternal interests of men, or to something 
of less moment^ Now I think nothing can be plainer, 



61 

than the correctness of the common construction of the 
passage, viz. ; that it relates to the difference which ex- 
ists among men with regard to their spiritual and eter- 
nal state. This appears from the commencement of this 
particular part of the discourse, v. 6, 7, 8, in which the 
Apostle brings into view the essential difference between 
real Israelites, and those who are of Israel, that is,descend- 
ed from him ; — between the children of the flesh, and 
the children of God. The Apostle labors throughout the 
discourse, to illustrate the manner, in which this differ- 
ence is made, drawing his illustrations, as was natural, 
when reasoning with Jews, from the Jewish Scriptures. 
That he refers to the difference which is made among 
men in relation to their religious character and salvation, 
is evident also from v. 22,23 &c, where, in pursuance of the 
selfsame subject, which was treated v. 6 — 18, he speaks 
of the vessels of mercy, prepared for glory, in contra- 
distinction to the vessels of wrath ; of those who were call- 
ed, both Jews and Gentiles, of God's people, &c. 

If still further confirmation of the correctness of the 
reasoning above exhibited were necessary, I could, as I 
think, make it appear, that the doctrine of God's sove- 
reign Election is the only doctrine, which accounts satis- 
factorily for the actual difference, which exists between 
true believers, and the rest of the world. 

But if, after all, any should be disposed to urge the 
common objections against this doctrine, that it makes 
God unrighteous, and that, if it is true, we cannot be 
blamed for our sins ; I would, for the present, refer them 
to this chapter, to learn how the Apostle Paul would 
answer their objections. 

The doctrine, we are now considering, is in my ap- 
prehension, clearly implied in the general doctrine of 
the divine purpose. That God has a wise and holy plan. 



62 



and that all events take place in conformity to it, is not 
only taught, expressly and abundantly, in the Scriptures, 
but results f rom the absolute perfection of God, and from 
the necessary dependence of all created things on him, 
as clearly, as any mathematical truth results from its 
premises. But if God has a general plan or design re- 
specting the events which take place, he must surely 
have one respecting so important an event, as the sal- 
vation of his people. 

But I can proceed no further with the proof. This 
subject has been argued by the ablest writers, that have 
appeared since the christian era. The controversy has 
been wrought up to such a degree of warmth, and the 
doctrine is associated in the minds of not a few, with so 
many strange and absurd notions, that it has become a 
matter of difficulty and hazard for a man to offer any 
proof in its favor, or even to profess that he believes it. 
Indeed, a man in some instances, can hardly find himself 
at liberty simply to repeat the texts of Scripture, which 
support the doctrine, without being attacked with a score 
of common place reflections, intended to put down the 
doctrine at once, without discussion. I trust my readers 
will be sensible, that the state of mind, which is exhibit- 
ed in such cases, is altogether at variance with Chris- 
tian candor, and in a high degree unpropitious to the 
cause of truth. 



LETTER Vlll 



My respected friends, 

Though I have detained you longer than I intended, 
on the doctrine of Election ; I must beg jour indulgence, 
while I express my thoughts without reserve, on various 
incorrect views and representations of the doctrine, and 
on some of the difficulties attending it. 

Orthodox writers have not unfrequently made use 
of expressions which, at first view, may seem to furnish 
occasion for some of the heavy charges, brought against 
us by our opposers. But let it be remembered, that, for 
the rash, unqualified expressions of men, who have be- 
come hot and violent by controversy, we are not to be held 
responsible. We here enter our solemn protest against 
the language which has sometimes been employed, and 
the conceptions which have sometimes been entertained 
on this subject, or rather, perhaps, against the appen- 
dages which have been attached to it, by men, who 
have been denominated Calvinists. Though we em- 
brace the doctrine, as one which is taught in Scripture, 
and which corresponds with enlightened reason and 
Christian piety ; we do not embrace it in the form, and 
with the appendages, to which I allude.- — But my pre- 
sent concern is chiefly with the representations of our 
opposers. 

First. It is often represented, that we believe in 
an arbitrary, unconditional, absolute decree of election* 
These words are used abundantly by opposers of the 
doctrine, and are made the means of exciting many pre- 
judices against it. This representation of the doctrine 
must receive particular attention. 



The word arbitrary has acquired a bad sense ; and 
is now understood to express the character of a master 
or ruler, who is tyrannical, or oppressive ; who acts with- 
out regard to reason or justice, and is governed by his 
own capricious will. God's purpose respecting the sal- 
vation of men is, in our view, at the greatest distance 
from any thing like this. We consider the purpose of 
God to be altogether as just and reasonable, as his ad- 
ministration. If, in the actual salvation of the penitent 
and holy, God is wise and good ; he is equally wise and 
good, in his purpose to save them, — his conduct being an 
exact accomplishment of his purpose. No objection, 
therefore, can lie against the previous purpose of his 
will, which does not lie equally against the acts of his 
government. The inquiry, then, respects a matter of 
fact. Does God act wisely and benevolently in saving 
sinners ? Or does he act from a capricious, tyrannical 
will ? If the actions of his government are capricious 
and tyrannical, so is his purpose. If his actions are wise 
and good, his purpose is so likewise. Now although in 
various respects, God's proceedings in saving sinners are 
inscrutable to us, and we are unable to see by what rea- 
sons he is influenced ; we believe he has reasons, which are 
perfectly satisfactory to himself, and which, were they 
made known, would be satisfactory to us. It is utterly 
impossible, that a Being of infinite perfection should act 
under the influence of a capricious or despotic will. 
Though his administration may often be contrary to our 
judgment and our expectations ; we confide implicitly in 
his wisdom and goodness.- Nothing can be more suita- 
ble for us, than such confidence in our all perfect 
Creator. 

I say then, we do not hold the doctrine of Election 
in any such sense, as implies, that the purpose of God is 



65 



despotic or capricious. It is indeed often represented in 
Scripture to be the purpose of his mllj and to be accord- 
fng to his good pleasure. But what can be more wise 
and reasonable, than the will or good pleasure of God? 
When the inspired writers declare the purpose of God 
to be according to his oivn will, they do, it is granted, 
signify to us, that it varies from the will of man; but 
they do this, to show its superior wisdom and goodness. 
If it were according to the will of man, it would be 
marked only with human wisdom. - But as it is accord- 
ing to the will of God, it is marked with divine wisdom. 

We inquire next, whether the purpose of God re- 
specting the salvation of men is unconditional and abso- 
lute. I know that, in consequence of particular errors 
which have prevailed, it has been so represented by 
many of its advocates. But the language is certainly li- 
able to be misunderstood, and ought not to be used with- 
out special care. Why should we employ words, which 
will not convey, truly and exactly, to the minds of oth- 
ers, the views which we ourselves entertain ? Here, as 
before, I look at the divine conduct in saving sinners, 
considering that, as exactly corresponding with the pre- 
vious divine purpose. And my inquiry is, — does God 
actually save sinners unconditionally ? The first answer 
I give to this is, that God would never have saved them, 
had not Christ interposed, and made an atonement. 
This, then, is a condition of human salvation ; it is the 
grand event, on account of which God forgives. But I 
inquire farther ; does God actually save sinners, that is, 
forgive them, and receive them into his kingdom, with- 
out any condition on their part? The Bible furnishes 
the answer. " Repent and be converted, that your sins 
may be blotted out." He that believeth shall be saved." 
This is the uniform representation of the Bible. The 
9 



66 



condition of eternal life to be performed by men, is repent- 
ance, faith, obedience. They can no more be saved 
without these, than without the death of Christ. These 
conditions, it is true, are of a different nature from the 
atonement ; but they are equally necessary. From this 
view of the subject, I come to a satisfactory conclusion. 
If God does not actually save sinners without conditions; 
he did not purpose to save them without conditions, — his 
purpose and conduct always agreeing exactly with each 
other. In his eternal purpose, he regarded the same condi- 
tions, and regarded them in the same manner, as he does 
now, when he saves. Clearly, then, the purpose of God to 
save men cannot, in this respect, be considered as uncon- 
ditional. And as the word is apt to be understood as 
excluding all regard to these conditions, and being so un- 
derstood, involves a palpable and dangerous error ; the 
use of it ought, I think, to be avoided ; except when the 
particular error to be confuted, or some other circum- 
stances, will show plainly, that it is used in a sense agree- 
able to the truth. 

But the principal object of Orthodox writers in using 
the word unconditional in this case, has been the denial 
of a particular error. Some men have asserted, that the 
divine purpose respecting the salvation of sinners, which 
is so often spoken of in Scripture, is grounded altogeth- 
er on the foreknowledge of the good works of those, 
who are destined to salvation ; and have, in this view, 
called the purpose of God conditional. Orthodox wri- 
ters have denied such a conditionally as this, and have 
justified themselves by appealing to such texts, as the 
following ; 2. Tim. i. 9, " God hath saved us and called 
us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but 
according to his own purpose and grace, which was giv- 
en us in Christ before the world began." Tit. iii. 5. 



67 



"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, 
but according to his mercy he saved us." God's saving 
us according to his purpose and grace is here contradis- 
tinguished to his saving us according to our works ; and 
the defenders of Orthodoxy have justly considered all 
such representations of Scripture, as opposed to the 
opinion, that the divine purpose is conditional in the 
sense above mentioned. 

To remove all appearances of inconsistency between 
the two different views above taken, of the meaning and 
propriety of the word unconditional, in relation to this 
subject, it is only necessary to make two obvious re- 
marks. 1. Those things, which are spoken of as condi- 
tions on the part of man, are not so, in any degree, in 
the sense of merit, and therefore take nothing from the 
freeness or riches of divine grace* 2. That which is re- 
ferred to in the passages above cited, where all condi- 
tionally is excluded, appears evidently to be the act of 
God in the first renewal of the sinner, or in first saving 
him from sin. " Who hath saved us, and called us with 
an holy calling, not according to our works, 5 ' &c. It was 
the commencement of the work of God in salvation. So 
in the parallel text, in Titus. " Not by works of right- 
eousness which we have done, but according to his 
mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and 
renewing of the Holy Ghost." The salvation here spok- 
en of, as excluding all consideration of works, was the 
act of God in regeneration,— the renewing of the Holy 
Ghost. This point is made still clearer by Ephes. ii, 4 
—10. Accordingly, we hold it as a fact, universally* 
that impenitent, unrenewed sinners do no good work, 
which God regards as a condition of their being renew- 
ed, or on account of which he has promised them re- 
generation ;— that, in all cases, he calls and renews them. 



68 



according to his own purpose and grace. Now if his 
merciful act in their renewal to holiness is, in this sense, 
unconditional ; so is his previous purpose. That the one 
is so, is as certain and unexceptionable, as that the other 
is. 

Such are my views, and, if 1 mistake not, of my 
brethren generally, respecting this part of the subject. 
But whenever we speak of the forgiveness of sin, the 
comforts of religion, or any other blessings, which God 
has promised to bestow, as tokens of his favor to his 
children, whether here or hereafter; we are led, by 
the tenor of Scripture, to understand them as promised, 
not only on the ground of the perfect atonement made 
by the Savior of sinners, but also in view of conditions 
to be performed by them. 

After the foregoing explanations, and similar ones 
from others, I hope the doctrine we hold respecting the 
purpose of God in the election of his people, or his agen- 
cy in their salvation, will no longer be represented as 
implying, that God, in this respect, bears any resem- 
blance to a capricious, arbitrary, or despotic ruler. AU 
though some Orthodox writers may have inadvertently 
used language, which might lead to such a view of the 
character of God ; yet that view is totally repugnant to 
our feelings, and to every thing which our doctrine is 
intended to contain. God does, indeed, plainly possess 
the uncontrollable power of an absolute monarch ; but his 
uncontrollable power is always directed by infinite wis- 
dom and goodness. Like a despotic sovereign, he does 
indeed act according to his own will; but his will, be it 
remembered, is the will of a wise and benevolent ruler, 
a friend to his subjects ; and his acting in all things ac* 
cording to his own will, instead of being a cause of dis- 
satisfaction and alarm, is the greatest possible security 



69 



to the interests of the universe. Like an absolute mon- 
arch, God may also frequently act, without any appar- 
ent reasons. But in reality there is no part of his ad- 
ministration, for which the highest and best reasons do 
not exist in his own mind. 

Now the danger of representing the character and ad- 
ministration of God by the language, which is common- 
ly applied to the character and administration of an 
absolute earthly sovereign, is, that the similitude, 
which is intended, and which really exists, will be carri- 
ed too far ; that instead of being restricted to those 
points in which a similitude would be honourable to God, 
it will be understood as reaching those, in which a si- 
militude would be a stain to his perfect character. The 
words despot, monarch, absolute, and arbitrary were not 
originally and necessarily expressive of any bad qualities, 
Despot signifies a master, a prince who rules with unlim- 
ited power ; monarch, one who exercises power or au- 
thority alone ; absolute, complete, unlimited ; arbitrary, 
according to one's own will. They all admit of a good 
sense ; and, in truth, they would never be understood 
by us in a bad sense, had they not become associated in 
our minds with the bad qualities of those earthly masters 
or rulers, to whom they have been applied. But in con- 
sequence of this association, we cannot safely apply them, 
or others like them, to God, without special care to lim- 
it the points of analogy, which are intended. And in 
most cases of the kind, even this precaution would not 
preclude all exposure to error ; because the words hav^ 
ing acquired a bad sense, cannot be applied to any one, 
not even to God, whatever care may be used, without 
danger of conveying more or less of that bad sense to 
our minds. I should therefore, think it unadvised, in 
any common case, to make use of such terms, as those 



70 



aboveinentioned, in describing the character, or admin- 
istration of God. 

It is said by our opposers, that the doctrine we main- 
tain on this subject, makes God unjust. 

As to this charge of injustice, which is always meant 
to relate to those, who are not chosen to salvation, the 
views which we entertain, and which appear to me very 
satisfactory, are briefly these. The Scriptures teach, 
that all men are sinners, and, as such, children of wrath ; 
that if God should be strict to mark iniquity, no man 
could stand before him ; that salvation, in all instances, 
is of grace, Now suppose salvation is not granted to 
all. Suppose it not granted to any. Is God unjust? — 
unjust in not vouchsafing to men that, to which they have 
no claim ? unjust in inflicting the evil, which they de- 
serve ? The divine law then is unjust. For how can 
the law be just in threatening an evil, which may not be 
justly inflicted ? Further. If we should say, God can- 
not justly withhold the blessings of salvation in the in- 
stances here intended ; this would be the same as say- 
ing, that justice requires God to save all. But the Scrip- 
tures represent it not only as an unmerited favor, that 
God saves any, but as a matter of fact, that he will not 
save all. Is God then chargeable with actual injustice ? 
But if God is just in annexing such a penalty to his law, 
and just in executing it ; it must be obvious that he is 
equally just in his determination to do so. For no prin- 
ciple of common sense can be more plain and certain, 
than that it is just for the omniscient God to deter- 
mine beforehand to do that, which it is just for him ac- 
tually to do. No imputation of injustice, therefore, can 
lie against the previous purpose of God respecting those 
who are not saved, which does not lie equally against his 
law, and his administration. 



71 



Here we find one of the principal sources of diffi- 
culty respecting this subject. It is not well considered) 
that the divine purpose is grounded on the same reasons, 
and conformed to the same views, with the divine con- 
duct. When God punishes transgressors, he does it for 
sufficient reasons. When he previously determines to 
punish them, it is for the same reasons. When the 
Judge shall say to the wicked, " depart from me, ye that 
work iniquity the reason of the sentence is obvious, 
namely, that they had worked iniquity. With a per- 
fect foreknowledge of that fact, and altogether on that 
account, he determines beforehand to pronounce that 
sentence against them. Thus the purpose of God per- 
fectly corresponds with the acts of his government. 
Accordingly, his purpose to punish is no more absolute 
and unconditional, than his act in punishing. And the 
act of God in punishing those, who transgress his law, 
is no more absolute and unconditional, than the act of a 
magistrate in punishing transgressors of civil law. A 
good ruler punishes only for offences against the law ; 
punishes only according to law ; or, which is the same 
thing, according to the ill desert of offenders. And no 
good ruler can ever design or decree punishment on any 
other principles. I object as strongly, as any opposer 
of the doctrine of the divine purpose, against repre- 
senting God as intending or appointing the destruction 
of sinners absolutely and unconditionally, without regard 
to justice, and goodness, and from a delight in seeing the 
misery of his creatures. Such a representation is infi- 
nitely distant from the truth. And whatever unguarded 
expressions Othodox writers may have sometimes us- 
ed ; I am persuaded they have really meant nothing- 
contrary to the sentiments, which I have exhibited. 

From the free remarks which i have made on this 



72 



subject, you will see what my views and those of my 
Orthodox brethren are, respecting what is called the 
divine purpose or decree of reprobation. It is, as we un- 
derstand the subject, the determination of God, the 
righteous Governor of the world, to punish disobedient 
subjects for their sins, and according to their deserts. In 
one respect, therefore, there is an obvious difference 
between the purpose of God to save, and his purpose to 
destroy ; a difference exactly agreeing with that which 
exists between the act of God in saving, and his act in 
destroying. He saves men as an act of grace, not out 
of respect to any thing in them, which renders them de- 
serving of salvation. But he punishes the wicked pure- 
ly out of respect to their sins, which render them de- 
serving of punishment. He executes upon them sim- 
ply an act of justice. That is, in a word ; they, who 
are saved, receive a good which they do not deserve ; 
but they who are destroyed, receive just that evil which 
they deserve. Accordingly, the purpose of God, in the 
former case, is a purpose to bestow upon men blessings, 
not deserved ; but, in the latter case, it is a purpose to 
inflict upon men the very evil, as to kind and degree, 
which they deserve. 

It has often been alleged, as an objection against the 
doctrine of Election, that it makes God a respecter of 
persons ; or represents him, as influenced by partiality. 

In order to determine, whether this objection is well 
founded, we must inquire what respect of persons is. 
The word, I think, has the same sense in Scripture, and 
in common discourse. Let us then see what its signifi- 
cation is. — Levit. xix. 15; " Thou shalt do no unright- 
eousness in judgment ; thou shalt not respect the person 
of the poor, nor know the person of the mighty ; but in 
righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor f- that is 



73 

thou shalt not be influenced in judgment by any consid- 
eration of the poverty or riches, the weakness or pow- 
er of those, who are to be judged, but by a single re- 
gard to justice and truth. In 2 Chron. xix. 5 — 7, Je- 
hoshaphat inculcated strict justice and fidelity upon 
Judges from the consideration, that with God, whose 
servants they were, there was no iniquity, nor respect' of 
persons, nor taking of gifts ; that is, that he was never 
biassed in judgment by any corrupt passions, personal 
attachments, or bribes, but acted purely out of regard 
to justice. See also Deut. x. 17, 18, where the people 
were cautioned, by similar language, against supposing 
that God would feel any partial respect to the persons 
of men, or that he would not exercise a just and equal 
regard to the fatherless, the widow, and the stranger. 
Acts x. 34. Peter learnt from his vision at Joppa, and 
from subsequent events, that God was not a respecter of 
persons ; that, in dispensing his blessings, he had not 
that partial and exclusive regard to the Jews, which had 
been attributed to him, but that, in every nation, he 
that feared God, and worked righteousness, was accept- 
ed. It referred to the special favor shown to Cornelius, 
a sincere worshipper of God among the Gentiles. So 
Rom. ii. 11, the same declaration is made, to show that, 
in his final judgment, God would treat all men on the 
same principle of impartial justice, without the least re- 
gard to any national distinction. See also James ii. 1 — 4, 
where respect of persons is explained to be a partial re- 
gard to the rich and splendid, and contempt of the 
poor. 

Now if respect of persons is really what I have rep- 
resented it to be ; the doctrine of Election, which we 
hold, does not imply, that God is chargeable with it in 
any degree, It implies the contrary. For the doctrine 
10 



74 



asserts, that he is not influenced to make choice of 
those who are to be saved, by any respect to their per- 
sons, more than to the persons of others, nor by a re- 
gard to any thing in them, or in their circumstances, 
which renders them more pleasing to him, or more wor- 
thy of his favor, than others. We believe, that those, 
who are chosen of God to salvation, are not chosen be- 
cause they were, in themselves, more worthy of this 
blessing, than others ; that God looked upon their mor- 
al feelings and conduct with the same disapprobation, 
and had the same view of their ill desert, and that he 
chose them, as we may say, for reasons of state, — for 
general reasons in his government, which he has not re- 
vealed. He did it, as it is expressed by the inspired 
writers, " according to the counsel of his own will," — 
" according to his good pleasure,"— -or " because it seem- 
ed good in his sight." These phrases plainly denote 
that the purpose and administration of God are, in this 
respect, different from what our wisdom would dictate, 
or our affection choose ; that they cannot be accounted 
for by any principles known to us, but result from the 
infinite perfection of God, and are conformed to reasons, 
which he has concealed in his own mind. These are our 
views. Accordingly, when, from the deep veneration we 
feel for the unsearchable wisdom of God, and an honest 
regard to what we conceive to be the obvious sense of 
various passages in his word, we assert the doctrine of 
Election ; we are at the greatest possible distance from 
imputing to him any thing like partiality, or respect of 
persons. We believe he acts, and determines to act, 
altogether from different and higher reasons. And we 
are satisfied, that those reasons are perfectly wise and 
benevolent, not because we distinctly know what they 
are, but because we believe in the moral perfection of 



75 

i 

God, and in cases the most profoundly mysterious, are 
sure, that his designs and actions are right. 

Will any one still assert, that, if God chooses men to 
salvation, as the doctrine of Election implies, it must 
necessarily be from partiality, or respect of persons ? 
Then it behooves him to prove, that God cannot 
choose them from any other motive ; — that it is impossi- 
ble there should be any other reason for making the 
difference. Unless this is made to appear by strong 
and conclusive arguments ; we may still believe, that 
God does thus choose men to salvation, and, at the same 
time, believe that he is no respecter of persons, but 
that in this case, as in all others, he is influenced by 
reasons, which are perfectly consentaneous to his own 
eternal wisdom and benevolence, and which, if known to 
us, would appear in the highest degree honorable to 
his character. 

Another objection, often urged against the doctrine 
of Election, is, that it destroys free agency^ and makes 
men mere machines. 

I reply ; that, so far as our honest convictions are 
concerned, this objection is groundless ; because we en- 
tertain no views of the doctrine, which seem to us in- 
consistent, in the smallest degree, with the most perfect 
free agency. 

But it may be said that, whether we are aware of 
it or not, the opinion, which we entertain respecting 
the divine purpose, is really inconsistent with free moral 
agency. 

In reply to this, I have time only to state, in few 
words, the reflections, which have been most satisfacto- 
ry to my own mind. 

The purpose of God, determining the salvation of his 
people, needs not to be supposed inconsistent with their 



76 



moral agency, unless the purpose of God respecting the 
conduct or condition of men is so in every case. I make 
it then a general inquiry. Is it in all cases, repugnant to 
the notion of the free moral agency of men, that God 
should have any previous purpose or design respecting 
their actions ? If any man, accustomed to thorough in- 
vestigation, should assert this broad principle ; I should 
be much inclined to ask for his reasons. — Are the acts 
of the understanding, the affection, or the will of man 
deprived of their own proper nature, because they are 
conformed to a divine purpose ? Is any one thing, great 
or small, which goes to constitute moral agency, taken 
away or in any degree altered, by the simple fact, that 
it exists according to God's eternal plan ? It would 
seem to me reasonable to suppose, that God's purpose, 
or will, if it has any influence, must make things what 
they are, instead of depriving them of their proper na- 
ture. — I first look at things, both in the natural and 
moral world, as they exist. I try to discover what they 
are. Then, as they are of necessity dependant on God, 
I conclude they must exist according to his purpose. I 
find myself a moral being ; that is, I am conscious of 
those powers, and those actions, which give me the 
clearest notion of a moral agent, and which, to my per- 
fect satisfaction, render me accountable to a moral law 
and government. I then conclude, as I am a creature 
of God, that I exist as I am, namely, a moral agent, ac- 
cording to his purpose. And if God's purpose, deter- 
mining my existence as a moral agent, is consistent with 
my actually existing as such ; why may not his purpose, 
determining* the exercises of my moral agency, be con- 
sistent with the existence of such moral exercises? The 
following positions, which I think conformable to sound 
reason and philosophy, express my views in brief. God 



77 

first determines, that man shallbe a moral agent, and that 
in all the circumstances of his existence, he shall possess 
and exercise all his moral powers. And then God deter- 
mines, that, in the perfect exercise of all his moral powers, 
he shall act in a certain manner, and form a certain char- 
acter. The determination of God, thus understood, 
instead of being inconsistent with free moral agency, does 
in fact secure moral agency. In regard to this subject, 
it aims at nothing, and tends to produce nothing, but 
the uninterrupted exercise of all our moral powers. 

But I drop all reasoning of this sort, and appeal to 
facts. There are numerous instances mentioned in Scrip- 
ture, in which God is expressly declared to have predeter- 
mined the actions of men ; and yet they had as much 
moral freedom, and felt themselves as worthy of praise 
or blame "in those actions, as in any other. The exam- 
ples of this, which every where occur in the sacred vol- 
ume, prove incontrovertibly, that the purpose of God is 
consistent with moral agency. For in those cases, in 
which we certainly know that a divine purpose has ex- 
isted, because it has been expressly declared, there has 
been, in every respect, as much evidence of moral agency, 
as in any case whatever, and as much, as we can conceive 
possible. Not the least thing, which can belong to the 
powers of a moral agent, or to the manner of exercising 
them, has been taken away, or obstructed, by the divine 
purpose. Nay, I should rather say, that those very 
powers of a moral agent, and the proper manner 
of exercising them, have been the true result of that 
purpose. 

Now admitting in the cases referred to, even if 
they were much fewer than they are, that the purpose 
of God has consisted with the unimpared moral agen- 



78 



oy of man ; I find no difficulty in admitting, that it 
may in any other case. And if so, the objection we 
have been considering, that the doctrine of Election de- 
stroys moral agency, and makes men mere machines, los- 
es all its force. 

I shall notice one more objection against the doctrine 
of Election, namely, that it is inconsistent with the sinceri- 
ty of God in the declarations of his word. 

The answer to this objection, which appears to me 
the most satisfactory, consists in assigning to the doctrine 
its proper form and relations. When I undertake to 
explain the purpose of God respecting those who are to 
be saved, I consider it essential to say, that it is to be so 
understood, as not to contradict his truth and sincerity 
in any of the declarations of his word. If, in connex- 
ion with God's purpose respecting the salvation of 
his people, the Bible teaches, that he commands men 
universally to repent, and invites them to accept eternal 
life, and that he is perfectly ready to grant them the 
blessings of salvation, on the most reasonable and gra- 
cious terms ; our faith must receive the doctrine, as hav- 
ing this form, and standing in this relation. It is thus the 
doctrine is actually received by Orthodox ministers gen- 
erally. While they believe the doctrine of Election, 
they do undoubtingly believe and expressly teach, the 
perfect sincerity of God in all his addresses to men x 
whether chosen to salvation, or not ; and they pre- 
sent the invitations, of God's word to sinners, with- 
out any reference to that distinction, and with as much 
earnestness, and as much belief of the divine sincer- 
ity, as if they had no conception of any divine pur- 
pose. And my apprehension is, that all this is per- 
fectly just ; and that if we had a thorough acquaint- 
ance with the subject, we should see, that the pur- 



79 



pose of God, and his corresponding agency are of such 
a character, that they occasion no difficulty at all re- 
specting his sincerity. These two points of divine truth 
are entirely distinct. They relate to the character of 
God, and to the state of man, in different ways. And 
when they are proved, each one by its own proper evi- 
dence, we receive them both, exactly as we receive dif- 
ferent truths, made known to us in different ways-, 
in any of the sciences. As to the fact of their consisten- 
cy, it is sufficient to satisfy us, to find, that they are both 
supported by conclusive evidence, and that neither of 
them palpably contradicts the other. If any man asserts 
that there is an inconsistency between these two doc- 
trines, he must prove it. And in proving it, he must re- 
member, that it will be difficult to satisfy thinking men, 
unless he can make it appear, that the evidence which 
supports one or the other of them is defective, or that 
the main proposition, contained in one of them, is, in the 
same sense in which it is there affirmed, contradicted or 
denied in the other. 

In closing my remarks on this part of the subject, I 
am willing- to concede, that those views of the doctrine 
of Election, against which Whitby, and many other re- 
spectable writers direct their principal arguments, are 
justly liable to objection. And if, in stating the doctrine, 
we should copy the example of some of its advocates^ 
and call the purpose of God an absolute, irresistible un- 
conditional, unfrustrable decree, using these epithets abund- 
antly, and without qualification, and in such a manner, as 
would imply, that the divine purpose is unreasonable, or 
oppressive, or the divine agency in executing it, compul- 
sory ; we should really give the doctrine such a charac- 
ter, that it could never be received by men of rational 
and candid minds. This is the apology, which I have 



80 



b&cn accustomed to make for some Christians who exhib- 
it marks of sincere piety to God, and heartfelt rever- 
ence for his word, who yet hesitate to admit, in so many 
words, the doctrine of Election. What they disbelieve 
is not the simple doctrine, as we understand it, but some- 
thing which has been artfully, or injudiciously appended 
to it. Cases of this kind have led me to reflect on the 
importance of special caution, as to the manner of ex- 
plaining and defending this profound and holy doctrine. 

I have now done, as concisely as possible, what I 
thought necessary to explain the proper form and rela- 
tions of this doctrine, and to guard it against misappre- 
hension. I make these explanations a part of the state- 
ment of the doctrine. And it must, I think, occur to my 
readers, that, when I use such care to shape and limit 
the doctrine, and to guard it against misapprehension, I do 
but imitate what the Apostle Paul did in other cases. 
His opposers were inclined to put a wrong construction 
upon his doctrines, and to make wrong inferences from 
them. 44 If our unrighteousness commend the righteous- 
ness of God, what shall we say ? Is God unrighteous 
who taketh vengeance ? God forbid." — Again, he taught, 
in respect of penitent sinners, that " where sin abound- 
ed, grace did much more abound." He then reasons 
with objectors. " What shall we say then? shall we 
sin, that grace may abound ? God forbid." We make 
use of the same caution on the present subject. The 
Scriptures teach that God has given to Christ a portion 
of the human race ; that all, who have been thus given 
to him, shall come to him, and be saved, without any ex- 
ception ; and that they are saved according to God's 
eternal purpose. This is what we mean by the doc- 
trine of Election. But is this purpose of God absolute 
and arbitrary, in the sense in which these terms are 



81 



commonly applied to man ? God forbid. — Is this pur- 
pose of God, in all respects, unconditional ? By no 
means. For without the shedding of blood there can be 
no remission ; nor can any be received into Christ's 
kingdom without repentance and faith, — But if God de- 
termines to save only a part of mankind, is he not un- 
just ? God forbid. There is certainly no injustice to 
those who are saved ; nor can there be any to those, 
Who are not saved, if their sufferings are only what they 
deserve. But is not the purpose of God in this respect 
chargeable with partiality, or respect of persons ? We 
say, God forbid. He makes the difference on princi- 
ples, or for reasons perfectly agreeable to infinite wis- 
dom and goodness. — But does not God's purpose to save 
his people, or his agency in executing that purpose, de- 
stroy their free agency, and make them machines? By 
no means. They are as free in this case as in any oth- 
er; as free as they could be, were there no divine pur- 
pose. Finally ; is not this immutable purpose of God 
inconsistent with the truth and sincerity of his propo- 
sals of mercy to sinners ? We say here also, God for- 
bid. His purpose no more interferes with his sincerity, 
than it does w 7 ith any other divine attribute, or with 
any other truth. In his offer of salvation, he treats men 
as moral agents ; and he always has bestowed salvation 
upon those, who have accepted his offer in the manner 
proposed ; and he would have bestowed it upon those 
who perish, if they had in the same manner, complied 
with the conditions. Who then can impeach his sin- 
cerity ? 

You now see what we mean by the doctrine of 
Election, and in what manner we believe it. As the 
result of his own unsearchable wisdom and grace, and 
for reasons which relate to the great ends of his admin- 

11 



82 



istration, God eternally purposed to save a great num- 
ber of our race, and purposed to save them precisely in 
the manner, in which he does actually save them. Now 
every man, who duly weighs the subject, must perceive, 
that, according to this statement, the notion of a pre- 
vious divine purpose is attended with no peculiar difficul- 
ty. If the divine purpose exactly corresponds with the 
divine conduct, our whole inquiry may properly relate 
to that conduct. For if the divine conduct in saving 
men is unobjectionable ; the divine purpose, of which 
that conduct is the accomplishment, must be equally un- 
objectionable. Whatever it is proper for God to do, it 
is proper for him to determine to do. And whether 
that determination precede the action by a longer or 
shorter space, its character is the same. 

After coming to this article of divine truth, concern- 
ing which so many mistakes have been entertained, and 
against which so many objections have been arrayed, 1 
felt a desire to disclose to my readers, with the utmost 
frankness, my inmost thoughts upon the subject ; being 
fully persuaded, that the doctrine, properly stated, is 
honorable to God; that it is abundantly confirmed by 
the scriptures, and has strong claims upon our faith. 
Indeed we should find it difficult to see, how any objec- 
tion could ever be urged against it, were it not for the 
natural repugnance, which according to the word of God, 
exists in the heart of man, against the doctrines of divine 
truth, and which, to our great discomfort, and with a full 
conviction of its unreasonableness and criminality, we have 
felt in ourselves.- — Were it not for this repugnance, which 
plainly shows the moral disorder of the human mind, no 
man, we think, could be found, who would not regard 
the doctrine with the most cordial acquiescence/ For, 
my respected readers, the precious blessings of salvation 



83 



must be ultimately, either in the hands of God, or of 
man. The extent, to which they shall be received, must 
be determined by God, or by man. The Scriptures 
teach, and facts teach, that God has reserved this great 
concern in his own hands ; that he " saves men accord- 
ing to his own purpose and grace ;" or which is the same 
thing, that he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy," 
I make the appeal to your impartial judgment, whether 
this momentous concern could be in better hands ; 
whether we have not reason for unbounded confidence 
in the purpose and administration of a Being, who is n> 
finitely wise and good ; and whether any sentiment re- 
specting this whole subject can be more reasonable in 
itself, or more suitable for us, than that, which was utter- 
ed with so much joy by the blessed Jesus, respecting 
this very doctrine ; Even so, Father, for so if seemeth 
good in thy sight. 



LETTER IX. 

My respected friends, 

If there is any one doctrine of revelation, which the 
Orthodox distinguish, in point of importance, from all oth- 
ers, it is the doctrine of the Atonement. My design in 
this Letter is, not to write a treatise on this subject, but 
to expose certain erroneous methods of reasoning re- 
specting it, to clear away some of the objections 
and difficulties, which have been supposed to attend 
it, and so to prepare the way for a fair considera- 
tion of its truth and importance. This is all which the 
nature of my undertaking requires. 

Here, as in other cases, a regard to truth obliges me 



84 



to 6ay, that Unitarians have greatly misrepresented our 
opinions. The Author of the Sermon before us gives it 
as a part of the Orthodox system, that "God took upon 
him human nature, that he might pay to his own justice 
the debt of punishment incurred by men, and might en- 
able himself to exercise mercy." He undertakes in an- 
other place to express our opinion in still stronger terms ; 
" that God took human nature, that he might appease 
his own anger towards men, or make an infinite satisfac- 
tion to his own justice and after giving our opinion 
this shape, he asks very earnestly, for one text where it 
is taught. We reply, that an opinion, thus shaped and 
colored, is taught nowhere in the Bible, and believed 
by no respectable Trinitarians. It is an essential part 
of our faith, that there is a real distinction between the 
Father and the Son, and that the distinction is of such a 
nature, that they are two, and are in Scripture repre- 
sented to be two, as really, as Moses and Aaron, though 
not in the same sense, nor in any sense inconsistent with 
their being one. In consequence of this distinction, we 
consider it perfectly proper to say, that the Father sends 
the Son to die for sinners, and accepts the sacrifice he 
makes ; that the Son obeys the Father, seeks his glory, 
&c. We find that the Scripture does thus represent 
them ; and though in our view they both possess the 
same divine perfection, we believe that, in consequence 
of the distinction between them, this representation of 
Scripture is just. We pretend not, with minds so limit- 
ed as ours, to be able to know the intrinsic nature, or 
the ground of this distinction ; but its results we know, 
because the Bible reveals them ; and we believe the 
distinction to be correspondent with what is thus reveal- 
ed. So that it is something quite diverse from the 
form of sound words, which we adopt, and quite diverse 



85 



from our belief, to say, that " God sent himself," — " that 
God took human nature, that he might appease his own 
anger, and enable himself to exercise mercy." And if 
any writer should still say that, if the Son shares 
divine perfection with the Father, it is impossible there 
should be any such distinction, as the Scripture makes 
between them ; he would indeed repeat that which has 
been said by a succession of writers from the Fratres 
Poloni down to the present day, but which, so far as I 
know, has had little better proof, than strong affir- 
mation. 

But it is not to my purpose to go into any argument 
in proof of the personal distinction in the Godhead ; but 
merely to say, that the passages, above quoted from the 
Sermon, and a multitude of other passages, which might 
be quoted from Unitarian writers, are far from being a 
true and impartial representation of our faith. They 
are indeed calculated to slur the Orthodox doctrine of 
the Atonement. But with every sober, honest man, the 
question will be, are they just ? — It is as plain to us, as 
to this writer, that God, as God, cannot be a sufferer, 
or bear a penalty. And hence we infer the necessity 
of the incarnation. "The Word," the divine Redeem-* 
er, " was made flesh," and thus was put into a capacity 
to suffer and die. 

The Author of this Sermon, and other Unitarian 
writers seem to think, that the idea, which is conveyed 
to common minds by the Orthodox system, is 44 that 
Christ's death has an influence in making God placable 
or merciful, in quenching his wrath, and awakening his 
kindness towards men." This representation demands 
particular attention. 

I observe, then, that it is uniformly the sentiment of 
the Orthodox, that the origin, the grand moving cause of 



86 



the whole work of redemption* was the infinite love, benigni- 
ty, or mercy of God ; and that it is purely in consequence 
of this love, that he appointed a Mediator, and adopted 
every measure, which he saw to be necessary for the 
salvation of man. The goodness, mercy, or placability 
of God, considered as an attribute of his character, 
could then be neither produced nor increased by the 
atonement of Christ ; as the atonement itself owed its 
existence wholly to that eternal, immutable goodness. 
This view of the subject, which we derive from John 
iii. 16, and many other texts of similar import, we incul- 
cate with more than ordinary frequency and earnestness. 
We believe that it is essential to the honor of the di- 
vine character, and to the sincerity and comfort of chris- 
tian devotion. If we have ever made use of language, 
or indulged opinions, in the smallest degree unfavorable 
to this sentiment, we deplore the error we have com- 
mitted. And whenever we find a fellow creature, who 
has entertained a different sentiment, we will vie with 
the Author of this Sermon, in our efforts to correct a 
mistake, which we regard with so much horror. 

But how happens it, that Unitarians have so often, 
and so materially misapprehended our opinions on this 
momentous subject ? The only occasion we have given 
for their misapprehension has been, the use of strong 
metaphorical language. It has been common for Ortho- 
dox writers and preachers, especially when they have 
aimed to move the affections of men, or to impress the 
truth upon them deeply, to represent Christ, as rescu- 
ing sinners from the vengeance of God, or shielding 
them from the arrows of his vengeance ; as appeasing, 
or turning away his anger, staying his fury, quenching 
his wrath or vengeance, divesting his throne of its ter- 



87 



rors, satisfying his justice, delivering men from the de- 
mands of his dreadful law, &c. 

Now I pretends not that this language is exactly like 
the language of the Scriptures. But the resemblance 
is so great, that no objection can possibly lie against the 
one, which does not lie equally against the other. To 
make this perfectly clear, I shall give a few examples 
of the manner, in which both the Old Testament and 
the New frequently speak of God. Psalm xc. 7. 44 We 
are consumed by thine anger." Isa. v. 25. 44 His anger 
is not turned away ;"— xxx. 30* 44 The Lord shall show 
the indignation of his anger ;"— xl. 25. 44 He poured on 
him the fury of his anger lxvi. 15. 44 The Lord will 
come to render his anger with fury." Hosea xi. 9. 44 I 
will execute the fierceness of mine anger." Deut. xxix. 
30. "The anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall 
smoke against that man." In other places the anger of 
the Lord is said to be kindled. It is said, that he is angry 
with the wicked every day ; that he hath whet his 
sword ; that he hath bent his bow, and made it ready ; 
that he revengeth and is furious ; and that he will meet 
his enemies, as a bear bereaved of her whelps. The writ- 
ers of the New Testament sometimes use similar phrase- 
ology. They speak of the indignation and wrath of God, 
and represent vengeance as his prerogative. — The Scrip- 
tures also represent God as turning or being turned from 
his anger, from the fierceness of his anger, and from his 
hot displeasure. This was the familiar language of his- 
tory and devotion under the former dispensation. And 
we well know that the God, whom Moses, David, and 
the prophets worshipped, was the God and Father of 
our Lord Jesus Christ. 

it will be said, that the language above cited is met- 
aphorical. Undoubtedly it is. And so is the language, 



88 



which is used by Orthodox writers on the subject of the 
atonement. The Scripture metaphors, which I have 
brought into view, are drawn from the same sources, and 
are of the same nature with those, which are objected 
to in the writings of the Orthodox. And I am sure that 
no advocate for Orthodoxy, how great soever the warmth 
©f his natural temperament, and how glowing soever his 
imagination and his style, has ever, even in poetry, used 
bolder metaphors respecting God, than are found in the 
sacred writers. Where shall we find imagery more ter- 
rific, than in those passages of Scripture, in which God 
h represented as full of anger and vengeance, even the 
fierceness and heat of anger, so that his wrath smokes 
and burns against the wicked ; — in which his fury is rep- 
resented to be like the fury of a bear bereaved of her 
whelps ; — in which too he is set forth, as a terrible ex- 
ecutioner, or warrior, with his sharp sword, or with his 
bow and arrows, ready for the work of destruction ? 
And what advocates for the Atonement have employed 
language more highly figurative, than we find in those 
passages, in which God is said to cause his anger to cease, 
or to be turned, by prayer, from the fierceness of his 
wrath ? Even if we should familiarly speak of the Atone- 
ment in the language, which the Author of the sermon 
thinks so exceptionable, and should represent it as de* 
signed to "render God merciful, to quench his wrath, 
and awaken his kindness towards men we might very 
safely rest our justification for the use of such meta- 
phorical language, on the example of men, who spake 
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 

Will it be said, that the bold metaphors, above cit- 
ed from the Scriptures, were peculiar to the idiom of the 
Eastern language, especially the language of the ancient 
Hebrews, and that thev are inadmissible under the dis- 



89 



pensation of the Gospel ? I grant that they belonged to 
the idiom of the Eastern nations, especially of the an- 
cient Hebrew writers. But it must be remembered, 
that Christ, in the most unqualified terms, recommend- 
ed the Scriptures of the Old Testament to his disci- 
ples ; and also that the writers of the New Testament 
thought it proper to quote, without palliation or explan- 
ation, some of the metaphorical passages referred to, 
and sometimes, with similar metaphors, to enliven their 
own style. And surely it cannot be thought strange, 
that a Christian minister, who is accustomed to enter- 
tain so high a reverence for the Holy Scriptures, and 
to look to them, as containing every thing pure and ex- 
cellent, both in matter and form, should infuse into his 
preaching or w 7 riting the same kind of metaphor, as that 
which abounds in them. It has generally been consid- 
ered best by Unitarians, if I mistake not, as well as by 
others, to keep as near, as may be, to the peculiar phraseol- 
ogy of the Scriptures. Why, then, are we blamed for 
doing it here ? It is not very easy to account for the 
manner in which Unitarian writers have treated this 
thing. If they acknowledge that the language of Scrips 
ture, above cited, is to be understood as highly metaphor* 
ical ; why should they suppose that similar language in 
our sermons and books of divinity is meant to be under- 
stood literally ? The moment they interpret our lan- 
guage, as they interpret the figurative language of the 
Bible, the difficulty vanishes. 

But what is the meaning of the metaphorical language 
now under consideration? To satisfy ourselves on this 
subject, it is only necessary to consider the nature and de- 
sign of metaphors, and the manner in which we learn their 
signification. In metaphorical language, words are taken 
out of their proper, literal sense,and for the sake ofillustra- 
12 



90 



tion or impression, arc used to denote other things, which 
are conceived to have some resemblance to what is de- 
noted by the literal sense. It is essential to a metaphor, 
that there should be, in some respect, a real or appar- 
ent resemblance between the proper sense of the word, 
and the metaphorical How, then, are we to interpret 
the metaphorical language of Scripture, above cited ? 
Does it imply that God himself is really like an angry, 
fierce, revengeful man, who is impelled by his outrage- 
ous passions to inflict pain, and commit acts of violence ? 
Infinitely otherwise. What the Bible makes known re- 
specting God, and all our best conceptions of his charac- 
ter forbid it. Every divine perfection forbids it. And 
common sense forbids it. Nor is it the least objection to 
the use of this species of metaphor, that the literal sense 
would be contrary to truth, and would violate the plain- 
est principles of religion. This is the case with respect 
to some of those metaphors, which are considered most 
unexceptionable ; as when God is called a rock, and 
when he is said to walk, or ride, or sit. In all such in- 
stances, common sense, properly enlightened respecting 
the nature of the subject, is competent at once to deter- 
mine the import of the metaphorical language. If a 
metaphor is taken from an object familiarly known, and 
is used with any degree of judgment, or taste ; we per- 
ceive instantly the point of similitude which is intended, 
and the meaning of the metaphor is perfectly obvious. 

We say, then, that the texts above quoted, do not 
imply, that the character of God is in any degree like 
the character of a man, who is impelled by his angry, 
malignant passions, to acts of violence. They do not im- 
ply that any thing like the feeling of revenge in a 
man, can ever belong to the God of love. The analogy 
intended is between the effects of anger and revenge in 



91 



man, and the effects of what is called anger and revenge 
in God. But even here, careful restriction is still neces- 
sary. For the evils, which God inflicts upon sinners, 
spring from motives totally different from human anger 
and revenge. Nor do the effects of the divine displeas- 
ure resemble the effects of human anger, as to the man- 
ner in which they take place. But as to the certainty 
and dreadfulness of the effects, there is an obvious re- 
semblance. In order to set forth how fearful and how 
inevitable is the punishment of the wicked, it is the cus- 
tom of the inspired writers to resort to the most terrific 
objects in nature. To illustrate the dreadfulness of the 
displeasure of God against sinners, they point us to a 
man, whose anger is fierce, and consumes all before it ; 
and, to make the illustration still more impressive, they 
point us to a raging bear bereaved of her whelps. So 
terrible are the effects of the divine displeasure. 

If we have taken a correct view of the metaphors 
above cited, we are prepared to understand the repre- 
sentations of Scripture on the other part of the subject. 
When God is spoken of as turning or being turned from 
the fierceness of his anger, or causing his anger to cease ; 
the sense must obviously be, that the dreadful effects 
of his righteous displeasure are prevented, or removed. 
A man whose anger abates, and whose mind becomes 
tranquil, ceases to inflict evil. It is with a view to this, 
that, when the effects of God's holy displeasure are 
prevented, or removed, he is said to turn or be turn- 
ed from his anger; and, if those effects were very 
dreadful, from the fierceness of his anger. And on the 
same ground, if any being in heaven or earth, should 
do any thing, which, according to the principles of 
the divine government, would have an influence to pre- 
vent or remove the evils, that would otherwise result 



92 



from the displeasure of God ; that being might be said 
to turn God from his anger, or render him merciful ; and 
if the evils, thus prevented or removed, were great and 
dreadful, he might, bj a still bolder figure, be said to 
" quench the wrath of God, and awaken his kindness to- 
wards men." 

Now as this kind of metaphor is so abundantly used 
in the Scripture, why may it not be used by those, who 
make the Scripture their pattern and guide ? And when, 
in conformity to their perfect pattern, they do use it, 
why should they not be understood, as using it in the 
same manner with those inspired writers, from whom 
they borrow it ? Why should not the same principles 
of common sense, and candor, and good taste be applied 
to the interpretation of it in the one case, as in the other? 
If this were done, no objection could remain in the minds 
of Unitarians, certainly not in the mind of the Author of 
this Sermon, against the language of Orthodox writers, 
respecting the influence of the Atonement. For he 
says, that many Unitarians, clearly meaning to include 
himself, 44 think that the Scriptures ascribe the remission 
of sins to Christ's death, with an emphasis so peculiar, 
that we ought to consider this event as having a special 
influence in removing punishment, as a condition or meth- 
od of pardon, without which, repentance would not avail 
us, at least to that extent which is now promised by the 
gospel." I am glad to find this development of scriptu- 
ral views ; although there is a sinking phrase at the close 
of the sentence, which the Apostle Paul would never 
have written. It is then admitted as a fact, and certain- 
ly it must be regarded as a fact of vast moment, 44 that 
the death of Christ has a special influence in removing 
punishment^' that it is an indispensable condition of par- 
don, and the only consistent method, in which salvation can 



93 



be granted. This important fact is described by Orthodox 
writers in various ways. It is the representation of some, 
particularly of those, whose ardent temperament, or vivid 
fancy, makes them fond of glowing imagery, that the 
death of Christ quenched his Father's wrath, caused him 
to lay aside his thunder, and to look upon sinners with a 
smiling face ; that it turned a throne of fiery vengeance 
into a throne of mercy, &c. In such metaphorical lan- 
guage as this, the just punishment of sin is likened to 
the effect of human wrath, of thunder, and of irresisti- 
ble power in a king, who rises, in frowning majesty, to 
inflict condign punishment upon rebels; and the lan- 
guage teaches, that the punishment of sin, illustrated by 
such images, is prevented or removed by the mediation 
of Christ. The language, taken literally, would impute 
a character to God, which would excite universal hor- 
ror. But if understood according to the legitimate prin- 
ciples of interpreting metaphors, it teaches the simple, 
but allimportant truth, that the death of Christ was the 
means of procuring pardon, or the medium, through 
which salvation is granted. 

Another representation which is frequently made* 
and which is borrowed from Scripture, is, that Christ 
bought us, or redeemed us from destruction by the price 
of his own blood. This figure is drawn from the prac- 
tice of redeeming captives from bondage, by paying a 
price. The similitude, when exactly expressed, is this ; 
as captives or slaves are released from bondage and re- 
stored to liberty, by the payment of a satisfactory price ; 
so sinners are delivered from just punishment, and made 
heirs of heaven, by the atonement of Christ. Some- 
times this same thing is spoken of by Orthodox writers, 
as the payment of a debt. This figure is also derived 
from Scripture, which represents us, as God's debtors. 



94 



Matt, vi. 12. 4i Forgive us our debts.'* Spiritual con- 
cerns are familiarly represented in the parables of Christ, 
by what takes place between debtors and creditors. As 
sinners we deserve punishment ; that is, we owe it to 
the righteous Governor of the world, to suffer evil in 
proportion to our sins. When Christ is said to pay our 
debt, it is signified simply, that by means of his suffer- 
ings, he delivers us from punishment. This similitude 
does not relate particularly to the mode of deliverance, 
nor to the nature of the evil which is escaped, nor to 
the nature of the good secured ; but merely to the fact of 
his procuring deliverance by means of his death. As the 
debtor, who has nothing to pay, and is confined to prison 3 
is freed from imprisonment by the generosity of a friend, 
who steps forward in his name, and pays his debt ; so 
sinners are freed from punishment by the kindness of the 
Savior, who interposed and shed his blood for them. 

It is said, that Christ redeemed us from the curse of 
the law, by being made a curse for us. The law denounc- 
ed a punishment. This was its curse. Christ delivers us 
from that punishment, by being made a curse ; that is, 
by suffering an evil, which, so far as the ends of the di- 
vine government are concerned, was equivalent to the 
execution of the curse of the law upon transgressors. 

When Christ is said to have satisfied divine justice, or 
the demands of justice, the sense is the same. In civil 
governments, if justice is satisfied ; in other words, if 
that is done which perfectly answers the ends of justice; 
there is no further necessity of punishment. So, when 
Christ has done and suffered that which answers the 
ends of justice in the divine government, the necessity of 
punishment, so far as those ends are concerned, is su- 
perseded. And if any of us should say, that our sin was 
imputed to Christ, our meaning must be, that Christ suf- 



95 



fered on account of our sin, — suffered, in some sense, as 
he would have suffered, if our sin had been imputed to 
him ; though a real imputation of our sin to Christ, in a 
literal sense, would have been a palpable inconsistency 
in a.government founded injustice and truth. 

I might mention other forms of figurative language, 
which have been employed by respectable divines, to set 
forth the design and influence of Christ's death; and might 
say respecting them all, that if they were interpreted 
according to the same principles, which govern us in the 
interpretation of the metaphorical language of Scripture, 
a very satisfactory sense might be given to them, so that 
no difficulty would remain. I would therefore appeal to 
all (hose, who have duly considered the nature and just 
interpretation of metaphors, whether it is a mark of judg- 
ment, or good taste, to overlook the metaphorical sense 
of the phraseology now under consideration, and to per- 
sist in treating it, as though it could have no other than 
a literal sense. Against the literal sense, there are in- 
deed many objections. And there are as many against 
the literal sense of the texts of Scripture, above recited. 
But against that metaphorical sense, which I have sug- 
gested, there are no objections in either case. 

But respecting these metaphors, I have two additional 
remarks. The first is, that some men, who profess to 
hold the general principles of Orthodoxy, have evidently 
been led into error by mixing a degree of the literal sense 
with the metaphorical. Though they seem to interpret 
the phrases referred to, as figurative; it is soon made ap- 
parent by their reasoning, that they still retain some im- 
pression of the literal sense. To this I think we can 
trace the notion, that, if Christ has made a perfect atone- 
ment, and satisfied divine justice, those, for whom he 
has done this, are no longer under the same obligation 



96 



to obey the law, and punishing them for their sins would 
no longer be just. This would indeed follow from 
understanding some of the representations of Scripture, 
and of Orthodox writers, in a literal sense. For if Christ 
paid our debt, or the price of our redemption literally, 
i. e. just as a friend discharges the obligation of an insol- 
vent debtor, or purchases the freedom of a slave by the 
payment of money ; it would certainly be an unrighteous 
thing for us to be held to pay our own debt, or to suffer 
the evils of servitude. 

To the same cause I am disposed to ascribe it, that so 
many men have thought the doctrine of the atonement, 
or of salvation through the blood of Christ, unfavorable 
to the cause of morality. If the atonement be literally 
and exactly like the payment of what is due from an in- 
solvent debtor; if it have such an effect, as to release 
the sinner from his obligation to render obedience to the 
law, — such an effect as to take away or diminish his ill- 
desert, or to make it less just in God to punish ; the doc- 
trine would indeed be unfavorable to morality. But we 
deny that the atonement has any such analogy, as is here 
implied, to pecuniary transactions ; and we deny that the 
metaphorical language, which is taken from those trans- 
actions to illustrate the subject, indicates any such anal- 
ogy. The atonement, as a means, and we believe the 
only consistent means, does indeed deliver sinners from 
punishment. But its influence is such, and operates in 
such a way, that the righteous authority of the law is 
eonfirmed, and that the undiminished obligations of sin- 
ners to obedience, their ill-desert, and the justice of 
their punishment are all set in the clearest light. 

Another hurtful notion, which seems to spring 
from the same source, that is, from attaching some- 
thing of a literal sense to figurative language, is, that 



97 



God's requiring perfect satisfaction to his justice in order 
to the forgiveness of sin, or his determination not to save 
sinners, unless their debt is fully discharged by another, 
shows less benevolence, than if he should forgive and 
save by his own unpurchased goodness, without any sat- 
isfaction rendered by another. This notion often lurks 
in the minds of those who believe the doctrine of atone- 
ment, but whose faith is mixed with obscurity of knowl- 
edge, and easily perplexed with difficulties. By those 
who reject the doctrine of atonement, the same thing is 
urged, as an objection against it. They contend, that 
the doctrine represents God to be mercenary, selfish, in- 
exorable ; and so makes his character much less amiable, 
than if he should forgive his disobedient but penitent chil- 
dren, by free mercy,without requiring any satisfaction from 
another*. " How plain is it, according to this doctrine," 
says the Author of the Sermon before us, " that God, 
instead of being plenteous in forgiveness, never for- 
gives ; for it is absurd to speak of men as forgiven, when 
their whole punishment is borne by a substitute." Uni- 
tarians have often made the same allegation against our 
doctrine. Now this would be a real difficulty, and 
might be urged conclusively against the doctrine, if 
the language, employed in describing the atonement, 
were to be taken literally. For surely a rich credi- 
tor, who imprisons a poor insolvent debtor., and refus- 
es to release him, till every farthing is paid by him or 
by his surety, shows much less kindness and generos- 
ity, than if he should give up the debt and release the 
poor debtor freely. And a father, who deals out to an 
offending child the full measure of justice, and withholds 
every token of paternal kindness, till he receives the most 
perfect satisfaction, exhibits a much less amiable charac- 
ter, than if, from the ardent love of his heart, he should 

13 



98 



be inclined to hail the first opportunity of showing favor 
to his child ; to meet him, while yet a great way off, and, 
on seeing marks of penitence, to embrace him, to cover 
his faults^ and load him with kindness. But here the 
analogy fails. For God's refusing to forgive without sat- 
isfaction, is an exercise of his infinite goodness, as the 
guardian of his kingdom. His requiring full satisfaction to 
his justice, or a full atonement for sin, and his appointing 
that such an atonement should be made, resulted whol- 
ly from benevolence. " God so loved the world, that he 
gave his only begotten Son." It shows higher love for 
God to save in this way, than if he should save without 
an atonement, by an act of unpurchased mercy ; which 
is only saying, that it shows greater benevolence in God, 
as moral governor, to save sinners in a way, which will 
vindicate the honors of his violated law, and secure from 
injury the interests of his kingdom, than in a way ? 
which would expose his law to contempt, and the inter- 
ests of his kingdom to injury. And this view of the 
subject, I think, must be obvious to every enlightened 
christian, who is disentangled from the literal sense of 
metaphorical language, and who attends to the whole ac- 
count, which the Bible gives, of the love which God has 
exercised, and the measures he has pursued, in the sal- 
vation of men. 

It would lead me beyond my intention, to point out 
all those errors, which may be traced to the habit of 
giving something of a literal sense to the metaphorical 
language of the Holy Scriptures, and of other writings, 
on the subject of the atonement. Having suggested in- 
stances of this, sufficient to excite proper attention to the 
subject, I shall proceed to my second remark ; namely ; 
when there is an evident tendency in the minds of men to 
understand any part of the metaphorical language, which 



99 



has commonly been used respecting the atonement, in a lite- 
ral sense, and ivhen we perceive that this occasions hurt- 
ful misapprehensions ; it is the dictate of christian wisdom, 
to be sparing in the use of such language, and, when used, 
to guard it with some special care against its liability to be 
understood literally. This caution I think should be ap- 
plied to the language, which illustrates the atonement 
by pecuniary transactions, as the payment of a debt, 
which a poor man owes; cancelling his obligations; or 
purchasing his release from imprisonment. Nor should 
I think it the part of wisdom, at this day, and on this 
subject, to make a very copious use even of those Scrip- 
ture metaphors, which represent God as having the pas- 
sion of anger, or wrath, and the atonement as the means of 
quenching it, or turning him from it. An abundance of 
this species of metaphor is not expedient, because it is not 
so consentaneous to the genius of our language, as to that of 
the Hebrew ; and especially, because the endless contro- 
versies, and extravagant fancies, which have prevailed in 
the world, have perplexed the minds of men, and ex- 
posed them to erroneous impressions on this subject. 
The object of language is to communicate useful truths 
to others. If it comes to be the case with any particu- 
lar words or phrases, that they do not in fact communi- 
cate such truths, though the words or phrases may be 
proper in themselves, and even though they may be au- 
thorised by Scripture ; it becomes expedient to explain 
them clearly, or to adopt new ones. 

Socinian writers seem to suppose, that we overlook 
those numerous texts, which, without any reference to 
the death of Christ, declare the free mercy of God to- 
wards penitent sinners, Here I think it easy, by a few 
connected remarks, to remove all misapprehension, and 
to present the subject in a light which cannot fail to be 
satisfactory. 



100 



The doctrine now before us, divides itself into two 
parts ; first, the simple fact, that God is merciful, and 
will forgive penitent sinners ; second, the particular way 
or method of forgiveness. These two things are per- 
fectly distinct in their nature, and may, if God pleases, 
be subjects of distinct revelations. He may, if he sees 
it to be best, reveal to mankind, at one period of time, 
or in one part of his word, the simple fact of his mercy, 
or his readiness to forgive the penitent, without giving 
at that time, or in that part of Scripture, the least inti- 
mation of any medium, through which his mercy flows. 
And it is clear, that the knowledge of this simple J act, 
without any other information, would be of vast impor- 
tance. Now this simple fact, so important to guilty men, 
is made known in a great multitude of texts, both in the 
Old Testament and the New, where nothing is said of 
the method, in which mercy is exercised. If this had 
been the case universally, and God had nowhere reveal- 
ed any thing, but simply that he w T ould forgive the pen- 
itent 5 our faith must have been confined to that simple 
truth. As to the way, or method, in which the divine 
forgiveness would be exercised, we should know nothing, 
except that it must be a way consistent with the per- 
fections of God, and the safety of his moral government. 
I grant, that our faith, even if thus limited, might be 
a powerful principle of action, and an inexhaustible source 
of comfort. And in such a case, it would certainly be 
our duty to check the impatience of a prying curiosity, 
and to wait quietly, till God should see fit to give more 
light. But he has given more light. He has taught us, 
by a revelation, additional to what I have just supposed, 
that his mercy, which is so often declared in the Scrip- 
tures, is exercised towards penitent sinners, through the 
blood of Christ ; that forgiveness comes in this way, and 



101 



in no other. Thus our faith is extended, just in pro- 
portion to the greater extent of the revelation. 

With regard to this last point, it is the opinion of 
some writers, who admit the doctrine of the Atonement, 
that nothing is revealed, but the single truth, that for- 
giveness comes through the mediation of Christ ; and 
that we are wholly incapable of knowing what particu- 
lar bearing the death of Christ has upon the moral gov- 
ernment of God, or how it secures mercy to penitent sin- 
ners. But careful attention to a few texts of Scripture 
must, I think, lead to a different conclusion. I shall 
name only two. Gal. iii. 13. " Christ hath redeemed 
us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for 
us." The text, and what immediately precedes it, clear- 
ly teach, that men, as transgressors, are under the 
curse of the law, which they have transgressed ; that 
Christ delivered them from that curse, that is, from the 
evil, which the law denounced against them for sin ; and 
that he did it, by being made a curse for them. A literal 
and exact substitution was impossible. But the Apostle's 
language must signify, that the curse, which Christ was 
made, or the evil he endured, had respect to the same law, 
from whose curse sinners were redeemed. It had re- 
spect to the same law ; not that it was literally and ex- 
actly the penalty of the law, or the punishment which the 
law threatened against sinners ; but it had such a re- 
lation to ths law, and such an influence upon it, that sin- 
ners, on account of it, might be consistently released from 
its curse ; whereas, had not Christ been made a curse for 
them, that is, suffered and died for them, they them- 
selves must have endured the curse. Thus, although 
the curse of the law, falling on Christ, is, in various re- 
spects, different from what it would be, if it should fall 
upon sinners : yet. in relation to the ends of the law, or 



102 



of the divine administration, it is substantially the same* 
And as those benevolent ends are secured, by the curse 
falling upon Christ ; it becomes consistent with the or- 
der of God's kingdom, for penitent sinners to be deliver- 
ed from the curse. 

The other passage I shall quote is Rom. iii. 24, 25, 
26. " Being justified freely by his grace, through the re- 
demption that is in Jesus Christ : Whom God hath set 
forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood* to 
declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that 
are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, 
J say, at this time his righteousness ; that he might be 
just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." 
Here the immediate object of Christ's being set forth 
is represented to be, to declare, or make known the right- 
eousness of God. Notwithstanding the authority of 
Schleusner and Rosenmuller, I am clearly of opinion, 
with most Commentators and Divines, that SixauoGvviq, 
in this place, has its primary and common sense, and sig- 
nifies that attribute of God, which leads him, as moral 
Governor of the world, to render to every man accord- 
ing to his deeds, and of course to inflict the curse of the 
law on sinners. The object of the death of Christ is 
then, to declare, or manifest, that God is righteous, and 
that in the salvation of sinners he will support the hon- 
ors of his law, and " the interests of virtue." 

In contemplating this subject, I ask myself, what 
hinderance there is in the way of God's showing the same 
favor to transgressors, as to the obedient. The answer 
is obvious. His law, and his character, as Lawgiver, for- 
bid it, and the interests of his moral kingdom forbid it. 
If, in the common course of his administration, he should 
show the same favor to transgressors, as to the obedient, 
he would set aside the authority of his law, and leave no 



103 



visible distinction between virtue and vice. Any ruler, 
who should proceed in this way, would soon bring to an 
end the order and happiness of his subjects. The ex- 
pedient, which the wisdom of God has adopted, prevents 
this consequence of extending favor to transgressors. 
The cross of Christ makes known the righteousness or 
justice of God, as moral Governor. It shows that he 
does make, and will forever make a distinction between 
holiness and sin. It has such an influence upon his mor- 
al administration, that he can be just, and the justifier 
of him that believeth ; that is, can forgive sin without 
degrading the majesty, or surrendering the claims of jus- 
tice. To express the same in other words ; the influ- 
ence of the atonement is such, that it has become con- 
sistent with justice to do, what would otherwise have been 
totally inconsistent, it is in this way I come to a simi- 
lar conclusion with the author of the Sermon ; namely : 
that Christ's death, " has an inseparable connexion with 
forgiveness, that it has a special influence in removing 
punishment, as a condition or method of pardon, with- 
out which repentance would not avail us." 

Correspondent with this is the practical view which 
devout Christians generally take of this subject. When 
they behold Jesus, who was holy, harmless, and undent- 
ed, suffering and dying for sinners, they see the honors 
of God's righteousness vindicated, and the principles of 
his moral government established. They consider what 
ends are accomplished in the divine administration by 
the just punishment of transgressors. All these ends 
they see accomplished, in the highest degree, by the 
death of Christ. And thus it becomes clear, that God 
can forbear to punish penitent transgressors, on account 
of Christ's death, without any injury to his moral gov- 
ernment, or any sacrifice of the interests of virtue, 



104 



Against our scheme, Unitarians urge one particular 
objection, which may deserve a few moments' special no- 
tice. The objection in short is, that the Trinitarian 
scheme lowers down the value of Christ's sacrifice, and 
K robs his death of interest." The alleged ground of 
this objection is, that we believe Christ to be God and 
man, united in one person, and that, as divinity could not 
be the subject of pain, the sufferer must have been mere- 
ly a man. 

This objection entirely overlooks an important ar- 
ticle in our system. We believe, that all the divine and 
human perfections, which the Scriptures ascribe to 
Christ, constitute but one person ; and consequently that 
all his actions and sufferings belong to him, as one per- 
son ; much as all the actions and sufferings of any man, 
whether mental or corporeal, belong to him, as one man. 
It results from this view of the subject, that the value 
or significancy of any action or suffering in Christ must 
be according to the dignity or excellence of his whole 
character. Whether the action or suffering takes place 
particularly in one part or another of his complex per- 
son, it is attributable to his whole person; and it derives 
its peculiar character from the character of his whole per- 
son, constituted as it is. The suffering of Christ was there- 
fore of as high importance or value, in making an atone- 
ment, as if it could have been, and in reality had been, in the 
most proper sense, the suffering of the Divinity. So that 
whatever may be the conceptions of Arians or Socini- 
ans, as we view the subject, the fact that Christ endured 
suffering in his human nature, and not directly in his di- 
vine, occasions no difficulty as to the preciousness, which 
we ascribe to his atonement. And I think the views of 
the Orthodox in this case are capable of being defended 
in the most satisfactory manner 



105 



The rejection of the doctrine of the Atonement, with 
which some, who call themselves Christians, are charge- 
able, is not to be regarded merely as a speculative error. 
It plainly indicates the disposition of the heart. For, 
after God has sent his Son to be a propitiation, and has 
told us, that we must rely upon his atoning blood, as the 
sole ground of forgiveness ; if we disregard that provis- 
ion, and hope for heaven on the footing of our own vir- 
tue or good works, we give proof of a temper of mind, 
which is in total contrariety to the humble spirit of 
christian faith. We signify that we think ourselves en- 
titled to future happiness, on our own account, and that 
we have no need of the merit or intercession of another 
to recommend us to the favor of God. Some Socinians 
boldly use language like this. They have the audacity 
to bring forward a personal claim upon the favor of God, 
The same spirit appears in all, who rest their hopes of 
heaven on their own goodness. Although God has provided 
a perfect righteousness, as the foundation of their hope ; 
and has taught them, that the salvation of sinners depends 
wholly on Christ crucified, and that no works of right- 
eousness, which they have done, and no accomplishments 
or dispositions, which they possess, must ever be named 
in his presence ; they still persist in spurning this pro- 
vision of infinite mercy ; in counting as foolishness, the 
grand plea, with which a Savior's death has furnished 
them, and in obtruding their own virtue upon his notice, 
as a better reason for their acceptance, than all the 
worthiness and all the grace of Christ crucified. 

Thus far 1 have thought it necessary to proceed in 
order to remove misapprehensions, and to give a just, 
though brief view of the real sentiments we entertain 
on this momentous subject. It has, I trust, been made 
evident that our scheme of faith is far from sullying the 
14 



106 



glory of GocPs moral perfections, or impugning the princi- 
ples of either justice or benevolence. On the contrary, it 
has for its foundation the immutable perfection of God's 
moral character, and the inviolable principles of his 
righteous government. And it is, if we know our own 
hearts, the strong attachment we feel to his glorious 
character and government, and our earnest desire, that 
they may have the honor of a perfect and eternal vin- 
dication, which creates in us such an interest in the doc- 
trine of the atonement. 



LETTER IX. V 

My respected friends, 

The design I wish to execute in these letters, re- 
quires me particularly to bring into view one more doc- 
trine of the Orthodox, namely, the doctrine of divine in- 
fluence. To those, who entertain the same views with 
us of the character of man, and the nature and necessity 
of holiness, this doctrine must appear of the highest 
worth. But here, as in former cases, instead of giving 
a regular treatise on the subject, it is my intention to 
correct mistakes, to expose the weakness of objections, 
to solve difficulties, and to do all I can to induce those, 
who have rejected, or half believed this doctrine, to in- 
quire with a candid^ unprejudiced mind, into its truth and 
importance. 

It has been the general representation of Unitarians, 
that we believe there is an invincible, overpowering, ir- 
resistible influence of the divine spirit on the minds of 
men, which is totally repugnant to their moral agency 



107 



mid accountability, and which makes them entirely pas- 
sive, — mere machines. 

In order that you may be under advantages to judge, 
whether this representation is just ; I shall here offer 
you a brief statement of our doctrine, with the leading 
topics of argument, which we urge in its support, and 
the explanations we are accustomed to give it in relation 
to other obvious truths. 

Our doctrine of divine influence results, as we con- 
ceive, from the nature and condition of created beings, 
who are and must be dependent on their Creator and 
Preserver. This necessary dependence of an intelligent 
creature, relates to the acts of the mind, as well as to 
outward circumstances. But we infer the doctrine more 
directly from the fact, that men are universally sinners ; 
that their moral nature is the subject of a most woful 
disorder. We think it the dictate of sound experience, 
that men will not in fact cast off the dominion of their 
corrupt affections, and render to God the homage of a 
sincere obedience, without special divine aid. 

But the argument, on which we rest without any wa- 
vering, is the testimony of the sure word of God. I need 
not give the proof in detail. They who attentively pe- 
ruse the Scriptures, will not fail to perceive, that this 
doctrine is there taught with great clearness, and in a 
great variety of forms. If God, by his spirit, produces 
no good affections in our hearts; if he vouchsafes no 
spiritual illumination ; if he does nothing to cleanse us 
from sin, and form us to holiness ; what can be the im- 
port of those texts, which teach, that God works in his 
people both to will and to do ; that he creates in them a 
new heart & a new spirit ; that he opens their eyes, draws 
them, turns, renews, strengthens them, and helps their in- 
firmities ? And what can be the meaning of the Ian*? 



108 



guage, which christians universally use in prayer, whefi 
they ask God to subdue their sins, to purify their hearts, 
and to work in them all the good pleasure of his good- 
ness; and when they ascribe to God all the good they 
possess ? We understand the language of Scripture on 
this subject in its most obvious sense ; and on this obvi- 
ous sense we found our belief, that all virtue or holiness 
in man is to be ascribed to the influence of the divine 
spirit, and that without the effectual agency of the Spir- 
it, man would have no holy affections, and perform no 
acts of holy obedience. This is a general statement of 
the orthodox doctrine. 

But we do not stop here. The doctrine has rela- 
tions to other subjects, — relations which are of great 
moment. We are sensible we cannot do justice to the 
doctrine, without attending to those relations, and giving 
the consideration of them a proper influence in regulat- 
ing our conceptions of the doctrine. 

This doctrine has a relation, first, to the attributes 
of God. In view of this relation, we say, the influence, 
which God exerts in or upon his creatures, is such as 
agrees with his infinite perfections, — such as results from 
them, and is suited to make a just exhibition of them. 
It is prompted by divine benevolence, as the influence is 
to accomplish a good end. It is regulated by divine 
wisdom, which renders it perfectly suited to accomplish 
that end. Secondly, the doctrine of divine influence has 
an immediate relation to the human mind. In view of 
this relation, we say, that the divine influence is adapted 
to the nature of the mind ; that the Holy Spirit operates 
in such a manner, as to offer no violence to any of the 
principles of an intelligent and moral nature ; that it al- 
ways produces its effects in the understanding, according 
to the essential properties and laws, which belong to 



109 



the understanding, and in the will and affections, with- 
out interfering with any of the properties and laws, 
which belong to them. We consider this peculiar agen- 
cy of the divine Spirit in producing and continuing ho- 
liness in men to be just as consistent with every thing, 
which belongs to an intelligent and moral nature, as the 
general agency of God in preserving and governing his 
rational creatures. Nor do we apprehend, that there is 
any thing more incompatible with the nature, and prop- 
erties of the mind, in the influence, which God exerts 
upon it, than in the influence which we exert upon it 
It is a matter of fact, that we have an influence, often a 
controlling influence, over the understanding and will of 
our fellow creatures. The influence which others have 
upon us, be it ever so great and effectual, may operate, 
as we certainly know, in a way perfectly correspondent 
with our moral nature. We are so constituted, that we 
may be influenced by others to do good, in consistency 
with our own freedom, and virtue, and praiseworthiness ; 
that is, we are none the less voluntary in doing good, 
and none the less deserving of approbation, because we 
are induced to do it by the rational, moral influence, 
which others exert upon our minds. I pretend not that 
the two cases are exactly parallel. But it is natural to 
suppose, that the divine influence is, at least, as consist- 
ent with our free agency and accountableness, as any 
human influence can be. For surely God, who made us, 
can have access to our understanding and heart, and 
produce any effects there, which he pleases ; and sure- 
ly he must know how to do this, without infringing any 
of the principles of our intelligent or moral nature. This, 
in our view, cannot be denied, without implicitly denying 
the dependence of moral beings on God, and taking away 
his power to control their actions, and to execute the plan 



110 



of his own government. For if any man maintains that 
the special operation of the Holy Spirit, is incom- 
patible with the moral freedom of man ; how can he 
consistently maintain that agency of God in his provi- 
dence, which is denied by none, but Atheists ? And who 
that admits the Bible to contain truth unmixed with er- 
ror, can doubt the constant agency of God in every part 
of the creation, and especially in the souls of his redeem- 
ed people ? 

It is in the manner above mentioned, that we explain 
the doctrine of divine influence. It has been explained sub- 
stantially in this manner, from time immemorial. These 
relations of the subject to the moral government of God, 
and to the moral agency of man, and the qualifications 
which necessarily arise from them, have been insisted 
upon with no ordinary zeal, by the Orthodox Divines in 
New England. We assert neither the special agency 
of God in the kingdom of his grace, nor the common 
agency of God in his providence, without asserting or 
implying that the agency is such, as secures to man the 
unimpaired exercise of all his rational and moral powers, 
— such as preserves his moral freedom entire. We treat 
the whole subject in such a way, as evinces to every man 
of reflection, that we understand it with these qualifica- 
tions. We speak of man, as being in the highest sense 
active in repenting, believing, and obeying. We repre- 
sent repentance, and obedience, as his duty, and labor to 
persuade him to perform them. We urge motives to 
influence him, as a moral agent ; we present to him the 
rewards of obedience, and the punishment of disobedi- 
ence ; we exhort and reprove him, and in all respects 
treat him in such a manner, as shows, that we believe 
the doctrine of man's moral agency, as firmly, as we be- 
lieve that of the divine influence; 



Ill 



If our opponents can prove, that our views of the di- 
vine influence certainly lead to the denial of man's free- 
dom and accountableness, as a moral agent, they may 
justly charge us with holding principles, from which such 
consequences do in fact follow ; though they cannot 
charge us with holding those consequences.- — But why 
should our views be considered as involving such conse- 
quences ? Is it because we assert the divine influence 
to be powerful and effectual? But how does it appear, 
that an influence upon the mind, which is perfectly suit- 
ed to its nature, and its faculties, has any more tenden- 
cy to make man a machine, or to destroy his agency, 
when it is powerful enough effectually to accomplish its 
design, than when it fails of accomplishing it ? Is it so 
with us ? When we exert a powerful and effectual in- 
fluence over a person, persuading him to relinquish some 
sinful indulgence, to which he was addicted, or to per- 
form some virtuous action, to which he had a strong re- 
luctance ; do we, on that account, look upon him, as any 
the less a free moral agent ? Do we regard that deter- 
mination of his mind, and that conduct, to which we per- 
suaded him, as having no virtue, because he was led to 
it by our persuasive influence ? Even if he should tell 
us, what is often a matter of fact, that the influence of 
our arguments was overpowering, and irresistible ; we 
should consider this as a proof, not of the loss of his free 
agency, but of the strength of our arguments ; and we 
should regard his ready submission to such arguments., 
as evidence of a sound understanding, and of a commen- 
dable disposition. 

The mode, in which we exert our influence, is indeed 
widely different from that, in which the divine in- 
fluence is exerted. But the consideration of this dif- 
ference will furnish a new argument in favor of our doc- 



112 



trine. For surely he who made intelligent creatures, 
and who unerringly knows the powers and properties of 
the mind he gave them, and all its laws of action, must 
be able to adapt his influence to the nature of their mind 
more perfectly, than we can. These brief remarks are 
sufficient to show, how utterly they misconceive the 
subject, who think, as many seem to do, that the agency 
of God can extend only so far, can rise only to such a de- 
gree of efficacy, without interfering with the agency of 
man. The fact is, that the highest point of energy, to 
which the divine agency, thus exerted, can rise, interferes 
not in the least with the proper exercise of our rational 
and moral powers. The whole design and tendency of 
the influence, which the Holy Spirit exerts over us, is to 
unshackle the mind from corrupt passion and prejudice, 
and, instead of encumbering and destroying moral agency, 
to conform its free exercises to the rules of virtue, and 
so to improve and elevate all the moral faculties. 

I ask again ; is it supposed that the divine influence, 
which we assert, is incompatible with morakagency, be- 
cause God exerts it upon us in a way so different from 
that, in which we exert our influence ; that is, without 
the use of language, or any outward signs ; or because 
we do not perceive its operation upon us, as distinct from 
the acts of our own minds ? To this I would reply ; 
that the invisibleness of the divine influence no more 
proves that it is not real and efficacious, than the invis- 
ibleness of the Creator, or the act of creative power, 
proves that the Creator does not exist, or that his crea- 
tive power was never exerted. Could we stand, as spec- 
tators, to witness the creation of a world ; we should on- 
ly see the effect 'produced. The cause would be invisible. 
But would this occasion any doubt, as to the reality of 
that cause ? — As to the use of language and other out- 



113 

ward signs ; it shows our imperfection, that we can have 
access to the mind in no other way. The direct access, 
which our Creator has to the mind, is, in all respects su- 
perior to what we are capable of, and of course his in- 
fluence, whatever might be said of ours, can never be 
supposed in the smallest degree to infringe moral agency. 

But though we allow 7 ourselves in the unfettered use 
of reason on this momentous subject, our ultimate reliance 
is on the oracles of truth. The inspired writers speak 
of the influence of the Spirit, as being in the highest 
degree poiverful and efficacious, without the least appear- 
ance of apprehending that it is incompatible with human 
activity, or that there is any occasion to defend the doc- 
trine against the objection above stated^ Indeed they view 
the doctrine in a very different light, and make use of it, as 
a motive to activity. " Work out your own salvation with 
fear and trembling; for it is God who worketh in you, 
both to will and to do." In this practical use of the 
doctrine, there is the most evident propriety. For what 
can be a more animating encouragement to a man, who 
is struggling against the power of moral corruption, and 
is ready to sink under a sense of his weakness, than the 
assurance of that divine Spirit, which will help his infir- 
mities, and render his eflbrts successful ? As the end of 
the Spirit's influence is to subdue sinful affection, and ex- 
cite that which is holy ; the more powerful and effica- 
cious that influence is understood to be, the more en- 
couragement to diligence does the christian derive from it. 

The grand difficulty, which attends this subject, seems 
to arise from the supposition of some analogy between 
the power of God upon the human heart, and that ex- 
ercise of power among men, which overcomes or super- 
sedes voluntary agency; in other words, that which 
shows itself in cases of coercion or force. 
15 



114 



If they who object to our doctrine, as incompatible 
with man's free agency, will examine their own thoughts 
carefully, they will find, I think, that their objection 
arises chiefly from the supposition of this analogy ; — that 
it arises from the habit of comparing the effectual ope- 
ration of the divine power on the mind and heart, with 
instances, in which men are constrained by superior 
force, to do or suffer that, which is against their choice. 
Such analogy w r e deny altogether ; and we deny every 
conclusion drawn from it, 

I cannot leave this part of the subject, without re- 
marking on the unfairness of our opponents, in going to 
such an extreme, as they generally do-, in giving a con- 
struction to the words, irresistible, overpowering, invinci- 
ble, &c. when applied to the divine influence. Although 
I am by no means fond of a very copious use of such 
terms ; yet I owe it to those who employ them more 
freely, to say, that these words are in good use, in relation 
to this general subject, and, all prejudice aside, will bear 
a sense perfectly unexceptionable. This I say, first, 
from a consideration of the nature of the case. Whenev- 
er these words are used, they are to be understood re- 
latively ; and the subject generally shows, to what they 
relate. If I speak of an irresistible or overpowering ar- 
gument, I speak of it with reference to that, which might 
be supposed to make resistance, or to that which is to 
be overcome ; i.e. I speak of it with reference to some rea- 
son or objection,which has been urged against the point to 
be proved, but which is now made to appear without 
force, or yields to an argument of superior force. Or the 
terms may relate to some opposing prejudice or passion, 
which is now weakened and subdued by the strength of 
the reasoning, or the persuasiveness of the eloquence, di- 
rected against it. In a manner like this, we are always 



115 



understood, when we speak of an irresistible or over- 
powering argument The terms, in such a case, are nev- 
er supposed to imply, that the understanding, or the 
conscience is the thing that is overcome, or subdu- 
ed ; and for the plain reason, that the force of an argu- 
ment, however great, cannot produce such an effect. In 
many cases, the direct tendency of the irresistible argu- 
ment is to illuminate and strengthen the moral faculties 
of the mind, or to subdue that by which they were blind- 
ed and weakened. Now who was ever so weak as to 
imagine, that an irresistible, overpowering argument had 
any tendency to break the mental faculties or to 
prevent the freedom of their operation in any move^ 
ment of moral agency ? We are accustomed to use 
these terms freely, and without fear of being misunder- 
stood, in relation to any influence, which a man exercis- 
es over the minds and moral actions of others, either by 
his eloquence, his generosity, or his superior wisdom and 
piety. 

I would have it remembered, that, by this illustra- 
tion, I mean only to evince, that the words irresistible, 
unconquerable, &c. when applied by Calvinistic writers 
to the influence of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men, 
are not justly liable to the objection commonly urged 
against them ; because the nature of the case shows, to 
what they must relate. When we represent the influ- 
ence of the Holy Spirit in sanctifying the hearts of men, 
as irresistible, or overpowering, we speak solely with re- 
ference to that, which is supposed to make resistance, 
or is to be overcome. Now in the divine work of sancti- 
fying the hearts of men, or causing them to love God, 
is it possible to suppose, that moral agency is to be over- 
come ? If their moral agency should in fact be overcome, 
would that help to make them holy? And can any 



116 



think that we mean to assert this ? The thing to be 
overcome by the divine influence, is sinful inclination, 
corrupt affection. Men naturally love the creature 
more than the Creator. They are earthly in their de- 
sires, and have a disrelish for divine things. This is their 
disorder, — the disease of their souls. The influence of the 
Spirit bears upon this moral disease. When we say, that 
influence is irresistible, and overpowering, our meaning is, 
that this disease of the soul, though very powerful and 
stubborn, is made to yield to the merciful agency of the 
divine Physician ; — that the remedy becomes effectual. 
The question really is, whether the successful operation 
of the divine Spirit,— in other words, whether the effi- 
caciousness of the remedy, applied to the spiritual disor- 
der of man, is destructive of his moral agency ? There 
Is, in my view, just as much reason to ask, whether the 
efficaciousness of the remedy, which is applied for the 
cure of a fever, is destructive of moral agency. I take 
it as an admission of all, who call themselves Christians, 
that the moral disease of man is capable of a cure, and 
that it is most desirable, that it should be cured. If it 
is cured? it must be by a remedy suited to the nature 
of the disorder. What the nature of the disorder is, 
God perfectly knows ; and is perfectly able to apply a 
suitable and efficacious remedy. Now when this almigh- 
ty Physician kindly undertakes the cure of our souls, the 
obstinacy of the disorder yields ; its resistance is taken 
away ; that is to say, the heart is effectually cleansed 
from its pollution; love of sin, enmity to God, pride, in- 
gratitude, and selfish, earthly desires are subdued, and 
man is induced to love God, and obey his commands. 
In other words, the sinner is so influenced by the Spirit 
of God, that he freely forsakes his sins, and, with all 
readiness of mind, devotes himself to the service of 



117 



Christ. And this is the satne as saying, that, instead of 
exercising his moral agency wrong, he now exercises it 
right The nature of the case shows, that this is and 
must be the meaning of the words under consideration, 
when applied by intelligent Christians to the influence of 
the Holy Spirit. I say therefore, that they will bear a 
sense perfectly unexceptionable ; and that this is the 
sense, which naturally occurs, and which, for this very 
reason, every man is obliged, by the rules of candor and 
sound criticism, to put upon them. 

I have a second reason for thinking that those, who use 
the terms under consideration, mean to use them in a 
sense, which does not infringe moral agency ; and that 
is, that they uniformly speak of man, even when he is 
supposed to be the subject of that very irresistible in- 
fluence, as exercising an unimpaired freedom, and agency; 
as choosing holiness, refusing sin, loving God, obeying the 
gospel. These are certainly acts of a free, moral, ac- 
countable creature, and, as clearly as any thing, can show 
the properties of a moral agent. The plain meaning of 
those, who speak of the influence of the Spirit, as irre- 
sistible, or overpowering, must therefore be, that the di- 
vine influence not only is consistent with moral agency, 
but actually produces, as its proper effect, the free ex- 
ercise of moral agency, in all those modes of it, which 
are required by the commands of God. 

Now considering that the terms, which have been thus 
freely examined, are commonly used in cases somewhat 
similar to that of the divine influence, without ever be- 
ing supposed to imply.any thing repugnant to the most 
perfect moral agency ; considering also, that, when they 
are used in reference to that influence, the nature of the 
subject shows to what they must relate, and in what 
sense they must be taken \ and considering, finally, that 



118 



those, who use them, make it perfectly manifest by oth- 
er language respecting the same subject, that they mean 
nothing, which can interfere with any of the principles of 
moral action ; I appeal to you, my respected readers, 
whether the outcry, which has been made against what 
is called the resistless, overpowering influence of the Holy 
Ghost in the conversion of sinners, is consistent with 
candor, or with justice ? I have long been convinced, 
that there is a palpable unfairness and violence in the 
treatment, which the Orthodox have received on this 
subject. If, in describing the gracious influence of the 
Holy Spirit, any of us use language, that is strong and 
impressive, — language which points to the power and ob- 
stinacy of the evil to be overcome, and to the certain ef- 
ficaciousness of the remedy applied; our opposers labor 
to put upon that language the most unfavorable construc- 
tion possible. Instead of kindly and fairly inquiring 
whether our words will admit of an unexceptionable 
meaning, and whether that unexceptionable meaning is 
the one which we aim to express ; do they not, in many 
instances, make it their object to find out, if possible, 
some meaning, which shall be marked with absurdity, 
and which shall, at any rate, expose to contempt the 
sentiment they wish to confute ? This is a heavier alle- 
gation than I am fond of bringing against any respectable 
men. But I cheerfully leave it to others to decide, 
whether the attempts which have frequently been made 
to decry this most precious doctrine of the effectual 
operation of the Holy Spirit in renewing and sanctifying 
the hearts of sinners, together with the want of candor, 
the heat of feeling, and the vehemence of expression, 
which have been exhibited by at least some of our op- 
posers, do, or do not prove the allegation just. 

I cannot close this letter without expressing my as- 



119 



tonishment, that any who profess to be Christians, 
should set themselves against the doctrine of the di- 
vine influence. For if we see a moral disorder in 
ourselves, which we wish to bo subdued ; it would 
be reasonable to suppose, that we should set a high 
price upon any thing, which would assist us in sub- 
duing it. And if the word of God reveals a divine agent, 
whose almighty energy effectually subdues the power of 
sin; those who have any right feelings, must prize this, 
as a most precious discovery. They must seek this 
heavenly influence, as the most important blessing, earn- 
estly desiring, that it may be exerted upon their hearts. 
The greater its energy, the more highly do they value 
it. Instead of feeling any objection against the notion 
of its being irresistible and overpowering, they most sin- 
cerely pray that it may be so. They know it is direct- 
ed to the one grand work of subduing sin, of purifying 
the heart, and guiding into the truth. They wish this 
work to be done effectually. Every thing in them, 
which makes resistance, they wish may be overcome. 
Their prayer is, " let the influence of the Holy Spirit 
be too powerful to be resisted. Our own efforts must 
be unavailing, unless aided from above. May God work 
effectually in us both to will and to do. We crave the 
operation of that efficacious, invincible power, which 
will subdue every corrupt affection, and sanctify us 
throughout in body, soul and spirit." — Such must be the 
cordial prayer of every one, who knows himself, and has 
a desire to be like the blessed Jesus. And I am con- 
strained again to express my astonishment, that any can 
be found, who calumniate or despise that doctrine of di- 
vine influence, which is one of the most distinguishing 
and most attractive features of the Christian religion, 



LETTER X. 



My respected friends, 

In the foregoing letters, I have endeavored to ar- 
range my remarks on the principal doctrines embraced 
by the Orthodox, with as much regard to order and con- 
nexion, as possible. In consequence of this, I find I 
have omitted several passages in the Sermon before me, 
to which particular attention seemed to be due. It has 
not been my object to animadvert on every sentence, 
which I might deem exceptionable. But there are in 
the Sermon a few passages of a general character, which 
I have not yet brought into view, but which cannot just- 
ly be suffered to pass unnoticed. To these I would now 
for a short time invite your attention. 

I have already remarked on what I consider a 
palpable instance of injustice in many Unitarian writers ; 
namely ; that they represent certain opinions to be pe- 
culiarly and exclusively theirs, when in reality they are 
embraced and inculcated by the Orthodox. The Ser- 
mon furnishes some examples of this, in respect to the 
mediation of Christ, besides what I have before notic- 
ed. The author, in pursuance of his general design, 
gives a summary account of the views, which he and his 
brethren entertain on this subject, and which, according 
to his representation, distinguish Unitarians from the 
Orthodox. But with respect to these views substantial- 
I must say, they form no such distinction. If Uni- 
tarians hold them, there is, thus far, no controversy be- 
tween them and us. And the agreement of the two 
parties in these views, should have been asserted ; just 



121 



as we assert that they are agreed in believing the exis- 
tence of a God, and the doctrine of a resurrection. So that 
if, by professing these views, the Author gets any cred- 
it to himself and his brethren, exclusively of the Ortho- 
dox, he gets it unfairly. 

The principal of these views respecting the media- 
tion of Christ, I shall now quote from the Sermon ; and 
as I wish to make all convenient despatch, I shall take 
the liberty at the same time to repeat them, as belong- 
ing to myself and my brethren. 

" We believe, that Christ was sent by the Father to effect a moral, 
or spiritual deliverance of mankind ; that is, to rescue men from sin 
and its consequences, and to bring them to a state of everlasting pu- 
rity and happiness. We believe, too, that he accomplishes this sub- 
lime purpose by a variety of methods; by his instructions respecting 
God's unity, parental character, and moral government, which are 
admirably fitted to reclaim the world from idolatry, and impiety, to 
the knowledge, love, and obedience of the Creator; by his promises 
of pardon to the penitent, and of divine assistance to those, who la- 
bour for progress in moral excellence : by the light which he has 
thrown on the path of duty ; by his own spotless example, in which 
the loveliness and sublimity of virtue shine forth to warm and quick- 
en, as well as guide us to perfection ; by his threatenings against in- 
corrigible guilt ; by his glorious discoveries of immortality ; by his 
sufferings and death ; by that signal event, the resurrection^ which 
powerfully bore witness to his divine mission, and brought down to 
men's senses a future life ; by his continual intercession, which ob- 
tains for us spiritual aid and blessings ; and by the power with which 
he is invested of raising the dead, judging the world, and conferring 
the everlasting rewards, promised to the faithful." " We be- 
lieve, that Jesus, instead of making the Father merciful, is sent 
by the Father's mercy to be our Saviour; that h£ is nothing 
to the human race, but what he is by God's appointment ; that he 
communicates nothing but what God empowers him to bestow ; that 
our father in heaven is originally, essentially and eternally placable, 
and disposed to forgive ; and that his unborrowed, underived, and un- 
changeable love, is the only fountain of what flows to us through his 
Son. We conceive, that Jesus is dishonoured 9 not glorified, by a?- 

16 



122 



cribing to him an influence, which clouds the splendour of divine be- 
nevolence." " Whilst we gratefully acknowledge, that he came 

to rescue us from punishment, we believe, that he was sent on a 
still nobler errand, namely, to deliver us from sin itself, and to form 
us to a sublime and heavenly virtue. We regard him as a Saviour, 
chiefly as he is the light, physician, and guide of the dark, diseased, 
and wandering mind. No influence in the universe seems to us so 
glorious, as that over the character ; and no redemption so worthy 
of thankfulness, as the restoration of the soul to purity. Without 
this, pardon, were it possible, would be of little value. Why pluck 
the sinner from hell, if a hell be left to burn in his own breast ? Why 
raise him to heaven, if he remain a stranger to its sanctity and love?" 

" We believe, that faith in this religion, is of no worth, and con^ 

tributes nothing to salvation, any farther than as it uses these doc- 
trines, precepts, promises, and the whole life, character, sufferings, 
and triumphs of Jesus, as the means of purifying the mind, and of 
changing it into the likeness of bis celestial excellence." 

These views are all ours ; and we are happy to ex- 
press them in the simple, elegant, and forcible language 
of this Sermon. And we would indulge the hope, that 
the injustice of representing them as peculiar to Unitari- 
ans, in distinction from the Orthodox, will not soon be 
repeated. — We have, indeed, other and higher views, 
as you may have already perceived, respecting the me- 
diation of Christ ; but none incompatible with these. 
And let me say, it is very evident to us, that those oth- 
er and higher views, which are peculiar to the Ortho- 
dox, respecting the atonement and mediation of Christ, 
invest all the practical views, above exhibited, with 
new beauty and force, and render them, in a higher de- 
gree, effectual in promoting a devout and holy life. 

I now proceed, with increasing surprise, to notice 
the same species of injustice, respecting the nature of 
christian virtue, or holiness. The injustice, which I now 
charge against this Sermon, lies in this ; — that Orthodox 
ministers and Christians, especially those in New Eng- 



123 



land, are held up to public view, as rejecting the senti- 
ments here referred to, respecting the nature of holi- 
ness, when, in fact, all that is particularly valuable in 
these sentiments, is insisted upon, and abundantly illus- 
trated by various Orthodox writers, whom we hold in 
the highest estimation. Those, who are acquainted with 
the writings of the most respectable Divines in New 
England, and those who have statedly heard the preach- 
ing of Orthodox ministers of the present age, and who 
know the general sentiments of Orthodox Christians, will 
have no difficulty in determining, whether impartial justice 
is here rendered us. I speak in the name of my brethren 
generally. Do not we believe, as well as Unitarians, " that 
the moral faculties of man are the grounds of responsibili- 
ty, and the highest distinctions of our nature, and that no 
act is praiseworthy, any farther than it springs from 
their exertion ?" When we speak of the influence of 
God's Spirit on the mind of man, do not we, as well as 
Unitarians, " mean a moral, illuminating, and persuasive 
influence, not physical, not compulsory ?" Do not we, 
as well as they, " give the first place among the virtues, 
to the love of God ?" Do not we believe, " that this prin- 
ciple is the true end and happiness of our being ; that 
we were made for union with our Creator; that his in^ 
finite perfection is the only sufficient object and true 
resting place for the insatiable desires and unlimited ca- 
pacities of the human mind ; — that the love of God is 
not only essential to happiness, but to the strength and per- 
fection of all the virtues ; that conscience, without the 
sanction of God's authority and retributive justice, would 
be a weak director ; that benevolence, unless nourished 

by communion with his goodness, could not thrive 

amidst the selfishness and thanklessness of the world; 



124 



and that God — is the life, motive and sustainer of 

virtue in the human soul ?" 

Do not we believe, as well as this Author and his breth- 
ren, " that great care is necessary to distinguish the love 
of God from its counterfeits ?" Do not we " think that 
much, which is called piety, is worthless ?" Should not 
we be as ready, as they are, to say, that, " if religion be 
the shipwreck of the understanding, we cannot keep too 
far from it ;" — and " to maintain that fanaticism, partial 
insanity, — and ungovernable transports, are any thing 
rather than piety ?" Is it not as favorite an opinion 
with us, as with them, " that the true love of God is a 
moral sentiment, founded on a clear perception, and con- 
sisting in a high esteem and veneration of his moral per- 
fections ?" — This Author says in the name of his breth- 
ren ; " We esteem him, and him only, a pious man, who 
practically conforms to God's moral perfection and gov- 
ernment ; who shows his delight in God's benevolence 
by loving and serving his neighbor ; his delight in God's 
justice by being resolutely upright ; his sense of God's 
purity, by regulating his thoughts, imagination, and de- 
sires; and whose business, conversation and life are 
swayed by a regard to God's presence and authority. 
In all things else, men may deceive themselves. Dis- 
ordered nerves may give them strange sights, and sounds, 
and impressions. Texts of Scripture may come to them, 
as from heaven. Their souls may be moved, and their 
confidence in God's favour be undoubting. But in all 
this there is no religion. The question is, do they love 
God's commands,— and give up to these their habits and 
passions ? Without this, ecstacy is a mockery. One sur- 
render of desire to God's will is worth a thousand trans- 
ports. We do not judge of the bent of men's minds by 
their raptures, any more than we judge of the direction 



125 



of a tree during a storm. We rather suspect loud pro- 
fession ; for we have observed, that deep feeling is gen- 
erally noiseless, and least seeks display." 

To all these views we most cordially subscribe. A 
man, who should undertake to exhibit elegantly, and in 
a few words, what Edwards wrote on Religious Affec- 
tions, could not do it better, than in the language of this 
Author. Edwards, and Bellamy, and many other 
authors, most beloved, and most frequently perused, 
among the Orthodox in New England, have labored 
with great assiduity and success, to distinguish true 
religion from its various counterfeits, to put down all 
the excitements and transports which spring from hu- 
man imagination or passion, and to recommend that re- 
ligion, which consists in conformity to God's moral char- 
acter, and obedience to his law. And if the Author of 
this Sermon should call to mind all the theological works, 
with which he was once conversant, he would not improb- 
ably find, that in regard to these very sentiments, which 
he represents as peculiar to Unitarians., he is under no 
small obligation to Orthodox writers. No writers have 
ever shown better than those above mentioned, " that 
religious warmth is only to be valued, when it springs 
naturally from an improved character ; when it comes 
unforced — when it is the warmth of a mind, which un- 
derstands God by being like him ; and when instead of 
disordering, it exalts the understanding, invigorates con- 
science, gives a pleasure to common duties, and is seen 
to exist in connexion with cheerfulness, judiciousness, and 
a reasonable frame of mind." — This Sermon simply as- 
serts these just and important sentiments ; but the wri- 
ters above named, have largely illustrated and confirmed 
them. And with Orthodox ministers in New England, 



126 



this distinction between true piety and its counterfeits 
is, more than almost any thing else, the subject of preach- 
ing and conversation. Probably however, we still fall 
short of our duty. And we ought to deem it a favor, if 
any one shall come forward to chastise our negligence, 
and to excite us to greater seriousness and fidelity in this 
momentous concern, even though we may be conscious 
that he does it, by denj^ing us the credit of sentiments, 
which we hold precious as our life. 

This Author proceeds. " Another important branch 
of religion, we believe to be love to Christ. The great- 
ness of the work of Jesus, the spirit with which he exe- 
cuted it, and the sufferings which he bore for our salva- 
tion, we feel to be strong claims on our gratitude and 
veneration. We see in nature no beauty to be compar- 
ed with the loveliness of his character 5 nor do we find 
on earth a benefactor, to whom we owe an equal debt." 
? — Does all the honor and happiness of entertaining such 
views as these, belong exclusively to Unitarians ? Do 
these sentiments respecting Christ distinguish them from 
the Orthodox ?— I would ask the same questions respect- 
ing most of the observations, which this Author makes 
on the benevolent virtues ? Is it a peculiar, distinguishing 
mark of Unitarians, to attach great importance to these 
virtues? Let any man read the books, or hear the 
preaching, which we most admire, and then say. 

Without proceeding any farther, it could not but be evi- 
dent to my readers, that they cannot unhesitatingly, and 
without examination, repose full confidence in the rep- 
resentations, which are found in this Sermon, respecting 
the sentiments of the Orthodox. — On such a subject as 
this, and with respect to such a writer, I should have 
preferred silence, had not justice required me to speak. 



127 



But I knew it could not be made consistent with truth and 
propriety, that those ministers and Christians, who are 
denominated Orthodox, should lie under the reproach of 
rejecting a great number of the most obvious principles of 
religion;— principles, which they believe to be of vital 
importance to the system of Christianity, and which they 
maintain with a seriousness and ardor, which bear ample 
testimony to the sincerity of their faith. 

On this particular subject,as well as on every other, which 
is introduced into these Letters, I feel happy, in address- 
ing myself to those, who have chosen candor and liberali- 
ty, as the honorable badge of their party. Let me ask 
you, then, my respected friends, whether it can detract 
any thing from the value of those truths, which you be- 
lieve, that they are believed also by the Orthodox ; and 
whether the honor of believing such truths would be any 
the less to you, if it should be shared equally by us ? — 
What end, then, can this Author seek to accomplish, by 
making a selection of some of the most unexceptionable* 
most amiable, most attractive truths of religion, and rep- 
resenting them as belonging peculiarly to Unitarians, and 
as distinguishing them from us, — when in fact we believe 
them, to say the least, as sincerely as they do ? Possi- 
bly credit and influence may, by such means, be secur- 
ed to Unitarians. But there are men, who will in- 
quire, whether they are secured justly? Possibly re- 
proach or disgrace may, by the same means, be cast up- 
on us. But is it ' deserved ? And pray tell me, what 
good end can be answered by possessing credit, which 
is unjustly acquired, or by inflicting disgrace, which is 
not merited ?— This Author advances much, to which we 
most cheerfully subscribe, in praise of candor and chari- 
table judgment toward those, who differ from us in re- 
ligious opinion Referring to this, he says "There m 



128 



one branch of benevolence, which I ought not to pass 
over in silence, because we think that we conceive of it 
more highly and more justly, than many of our breth- 
ren." And he shows how strongly he reprobates the 
conduct of a Christian, who is " covered with badges of 
party, who shuts his eyes on the virtues, and his ears 
on the arguments of his opponents, arrogating all ex- 
cellence to his own sect, &c." I wish there were less ap- 
pearance of inconsistency between these charming pas- 
sages in the Sermon, and those others, on which I have 
thought it necessary to animadvert. 

Though I intend not by any means, to enumerate 
all the instances of misrepresentation, which occur in 
this Sermon ; there is one passage, respecting moral 
government, upon which I would detain you a few mo- 
ments. " If there be any principle of morality," says 
this Author, " it is this, that we are accountable beings, 
only because we have consciences, a power of knowing 
and performing our duty ; and that in as far as we want 
this power, we are incapable of sin, guilt, or blame. We 
should call a parent a monster, who should judge and 
treat his children in opposition to this principle ; and 
yet this enormous immorality is charged on our Father 
in heaven."— The author would evidently impute this 
gross impiety to the Orthodox. And yet I must say, in 
their behalf, that the principle for which he contends, 
is ours, as well as his. We believe that this principle 
is inwrought into our moral nature ; that every man 
feels its truth ; that every judgment he passes upon his 
own actions, and every conviction of duty, implies a 
practical acknowledgment of it ; in a word, that it is one 
of those principles, which need no arguments to prove 
them, because they are themselves plainer, than any 
thing which can be adduced as proof. 



129 

The views, which we entertain of the moral corrup* 
tion of man, whether original or superinduced, and in 
whatever degree it may exist, are perfectly consistent 
with the principle, " that we are accountable beings, 
only because we have consciences, and a power of know-* 
ing and performing our duty." Indeed, such are our 
notions of the nature of an intelligent, moral being, 
that we conceive it to be utterly impossible, that 
any degree of depravity should take away his con- 
science, or his power of knowing and doing his duty. 
These, as we think, are inseparable properties of an ac- 
countable creature, in all stages of his existence, and 
whatever may be his circumstances, or his character. 
He cannot be subject to law, or accountable for his ac- 
tions, without these properties, any more than he can, 
without a soul.— It is with these views, we hold the 
doctrine of man's depravity. We believe it, not in 
such an unrestricted, absolute sense, as is sometimes sup- 
posed, but with all the limitations, which result from its 
connexion with other acknowledged truths. Explana- 
tions, like those above suggested, ought always to be 
considered, as making a part of the declaration of our 
faith ; and, in this case they are peculiarly necessary, on 
account of the facility, with which the doctrine comes 
into alliance with various hurtful errors. — Let it there- 
fore be remembered, that if any one represents us as 
believing, that men are depraved in such a sense, that 
their conscience, or their power of knowing and doing 
their duty is taken away, or any principle of free moral 
agency infringed in other words, if any one represents 
us as believing the doctrine of depravity, whether innate 
or acquired, in such a sense, as makes it any less fit and 
proper, that God should place men under a moral gov- 
ernment, and address to them commands, promises, and 
17 



130 

threats, than if they were perfectly free from corrup- 
tion ; they give a representation of our views, as really 
incorrect, as if they should accuse us of holding, that, in 
consequence of men's depravity, they have no eyes to 
see the light of the sun, and no ears to hear the noise 
of thunder. 

If there is any principle respecting the moral gov- 
ernment of God, which the Orthodox clergy in New 
England earnestly labor to inculcate, it is this ; that, as 
accountable beings, we have a conscience, and a power of 
knowing and performing our duty. Our zeal in defence 
of this principle has been such, as to occasion no small 
umbrage to some, who are attached to every feature 
and every phraseology of Calvinism. On this subject, 
there is, in fact, a well known difference between our 
views, and those of some modern, as well as more an- 
cient Divines, who rank high on the side of Orthodoxy. 
I urge it, therefore, as a matter of justice, that how 
earnestly soever the Author of this Sermon might have 
been disposed to censure the opinions of others, he ought 
to have made an express exception in our favor. And 
considering what advantages he has had of being ac- 
quainted with the modes of thinking and preaching, 
which generally prevail among the Orthodox ministers 
of New England, I hardly know how christian candor 
ought to shape its apology for this oversight. 

It is readily admitted, that some men may be found 
among us, whom we venerate and honor, as advocates 
for true religion, who yet have preached or written ob- 
scurely, or confusedly, on the subject of depravity, free 
agency, and a moral government. But surely, we are 
not, as a body, to be charged with entertaining all the 
opinions, and with justifying all the expressions of every 
man, who believes generally the principles of Ortho- 



131 



doxy. I am confident, that you would strongly condemn 
us, if we should treat you in such a manner as this. 
Should I, in these Letters, impute to you, as a Society 
of Unitarians, all the extravagancies of opinion, which 
some German, English, or American Unitarians have 
held, and all the rashness and violence of language, 
which they have employed ; you would doubtless 
think me guilty of acting contrary to fairness and 
equity. I have endeavored to avoid the most distant 
approach to this species of unfairness ; and therefore 
have purposely refrained from associating passages in 
this Sermon with passages from those Unitarian writers, 
against whom the greatest public odium has been ex- 
cited.- — Now on the other hand ; suppose you find in 
an author, or hear from a preacher, reputed Orthodox, 
an unguarded expression on the subject of depravity, or 
moral agency, or on any other subject, — an expression lia- 
ble, at least, to misconstruction, and suited to excite pre- 
judice against Orthodoxy ; will you impute that expres- 
sion, or the opinion conveyed by it, to the Orthodox 
generally ? We may perhaps consider the expression, 
and the opinion, as exceptionable, as you do ; and it may 
be as really contrary to truth, for you to impute them 
to us, as for us to impute them to you. — The question 
is, have we authorised that writer, or that preacher, to 
speak in our name, and publicly to make known our 
faith ? Or have we ever, in any form, declared our un- 
qualified assent to his opinions, or professed those 
which are like them ? If not, why should every spec- 
ulation and every expression of his be charged to 
our account ? Infidels may just as well charge up- 
on the whole community of Christians, the irregularities 
and vices of every individual, who is regarded as belong- 
ing to that community There have been, within a few 



132 



years, some instances of this kind of unfairness towards 
the Orthodox generally, and particularly towards some of # 
the subdivisions among them, which cannot but be rep- 
robated by all men, who possess common justice, or com- 
mon sense. 



LETTER XI. 

My respected friends, 

I have reserved, as the last subject of discussion in 
these Letters, the practical influence, or tendency of the 
system, embraced by the Orthodox. 

To my mind, it is exceedingly obvious, that repre- 
sentations are often made on this subject, which are 
radically erroneous, and that, by these means, an im- 
pression is produced on the feelings of many, hostile at 
once to their personal welfare, and to the interests of 
religion. Such representations ought to be correct- 
ed, and the subject, which must, by both parties, be 
considered as highly important, to be set in a true light. 
The salutary influence of the Orthodox system has been 
often illustrated, and has appeared to me so perfectly 
clear, that it has been a matter of astonishment, that 
any intelligent man should entertain a doubt respecting 
it. The most candid construction, which I have been 
able to put upon the opinions and representations of 
our opponents, as to the practical tendency of Ortho- 
doxy, is, that they take an erroneous view of the system 
itself. They behold it in a false light. They overlook 
its genuine features, and see, or think they see deformi- 
ties, from which it is wholly free. Now admitting that 



133 



the system does appear thus in their view, I can easily 
account for it, that they should believe its moral tenden- 
cy to be so mischievous. If the system of the Ortho- 
dox were, in truth, what Priestley, and Fellowes, and Bel- 
sham, and even the Author of this Sermon have repre- 
sented it to be ; its consequences would indeed be per- 
nicious. So I might say, if Christianity were, in truth, 
that monstrous thing, which infidel philosophers have 
represented it to be ; the opposition and hatred, which 
have risen up against it, would have been just. But it 
is not so. And the Advocates for Christianity have a 
right to say, and are bound to say, and to prove, that 
it is a system of consummate excellence ; that the enmi- 
ty of its opposers against it, has been altogether unjust 
and criminal ; that it merits the highest attachment, and 
that, to all its friends, it is fraught with inestimable bles- 
sings. I would not make a reproachful comparison. 
But we know, that the Orthodox system is not what 
Unitarians have declared it to be. Its genuine features 
are not seen at all in the picture, which they have drawn 
of it. Now the question to be discussed in this Letter, 
is, not whether such a system of doctrines, as Unitarians 
impute to the Orthodox, is mischievous in its tendency ; 
but what is the influence of that system, which we really 
believe, and teach ? 

The Author of this Sermon thinks, that it is " unfa- 
vorable to devotion — " that it takes from the Father 
the Supreme affection which is his due, and transfers it 
to the Son;" — "that it awakens human transport, rath- 
er than that deep veneration of the moral perfections 
of God, which is the essence of piety ;" — " that it robs 
Christ's death of interest, — weakens our sympathy with 
his sufferings, and is, of all others, most unfavorable to 
a love of Christ, founded on a sense of his sacrifices for 



134 



mankind — " that it discourages the timid, gives excuses 
to the bad, feeds the vanity of the fanatical, and offers 
shelter to the feelings of the malignant — " that it tends 
strongly to pervert the moral faculty, to form a gloomy, 
forbidding, and servile religion, and to lead men to sub- 
stitute censoriousness, bitterness, and persecution, for a 
tender and impartial charity — that it is a " system, 
which begins with degrading human nature, and may be 
expected to end in pride." — Priestley, Belsham, and oth- 
ers, in perfect accordance with this Author, have re- 
presented the system of Orthodoxy to be rigorous, gloomy, 
and horrible, — the extravagance of error, — a mischievous 
compound of impiety and idolatry* 

It would be a sad case, if the Unitarians above nam- 
ed, had no better proof to offer of a candid, liberal spirit, 
than what they have given in these heavy, but unsup- 
ported charges, — these harsh and causeless censures. I 
might very safely leave such censures as these, without 
any remark, — trusting that their extreme violence would 
be sufficiently visible to counteract any unfavorable ef- 
fect, which they might be likely to produce. — But I have 
another object in view, which requires me not to pass 
over this subject lightly. I wish, in as comprehensive 
a manner as possible, to give a direct elucidation of the 
salutary influence of the system, which the Orthodox be- 
lieve. The confutation of particular charges, as far as 
necessary, may be found in this general elucidation. 

I shall first inquire, whether the grand and obvious 
properties of that system of religion, which we believe, 
are not adapted to produce a good influence in a general 
view, on those who embrace it. After this, I shall advert 
to some particular parts of Christian virtue and duty, and 
inquire in what way they are likely to be affected by the 
Orthodox system, 



135 



What then are the grand, obvious properties, which 
a system of religion must have, in order to produce a 
good influence on the character and practice of those 
who embrace it ? 

First. It must exhibit a Being of infinite perfection, 
as the object of worship. If there is any thing faulty in 
the character of him, whom we worship, it will, accord- 
ing to a well known principle, have a bad effect upon 
our character. But the God whom we love and adore, 
must not be described by our opposers. Or if they do 
describe him, their description must not be received, in- 
stead of ours. The Orthodox have described the char- 
acter of God, as infinite and immutable in every di- 
vine perfection, both natural and moral ; as ami- 
able and glorious in the highest possible degree. Is 
not such a God worthy of supreme love and ado- 
ration ? And can the sincere worship of such a Be- 
ing fail to promote moral purity in us ? Can it be oth- 
erwise, than that the habit of affectionately and devoutly 
contemplating the perfect justice and benevolence, which 
we ascribe to God, must have a powerful tendency to 
make us just and benevolent ? I know we are accused 
of worshipping a Being, who is unjust, partial, and malig- 
nant. And it is a matter of course that we should be 
accused of imitating that injustice, partiality and malig- 
nity, which are thought to belong to the character of 
him, whom we worship. But it remains to be proved, 
that such attributes do in fact belong to the character., 
which is the object of our adoration. It has often been 
affirmed by our opponents ; but the unsupported affir- 
mation, that we worship an unjust, malignant Being, can- 
not surely be admitted as proof, in opposition to the 
most sober declaration on our part, that we ascribe t© 
God infinite justice and benevolence. But there can be no 



136 



occasion to enlarge on this topic, after what I have writ- 
ten, in Letter III. To that I refer you. And if you have 
carefully attended to the views there expressed, of the 
character of Jehovah, and can have confidence enough 
in me to believe, that they are indeed the views, which 
1 and my brethren entertain ; I will add nothing, but an 
appeal to your judgment, whether the worship of such 
a God can be otherwise than salutary to the cause of 
virtue ? 

Secondly. A scheme of religion, in order to have a 
good moral influence, must exhibit a moral government, 
marked with holiness and righteousness throughout. There 
must be a holy and benevolent Sovereign, who, by a 
system of wise and good laws, requires of his subjects 
that conduct, which is necessary to the order and 
happiness of his kingdom. In his administration, he 
must show a constant regard to the principles of his gov- 
ernment, and an invariable determination to give them 
support and efficiency. The authority of the law, and 
the character of holiness and justice in the Lawgiver must 
be sustained, by the influence of a penalty ; — a penalty, 
the execution of which shall spread an impression of a we 
through the universe, at the sight of God's high displeas- 
ure against sin. Now does not the system of religion, 
which the Orthodox maintain, exhibit a moral govern- 
ment possessing all these properties ? Does it not con- 
stantly hold up to view, a Supreme Ruler, perfectly ho- 
ly and benevolent ? Does it not inculcate upon all men, 
a wise and holy law, in ail its extent, as of immutable ob- 
ligation ? Does it not constantly teach, that the Governor 
of the world loves holiness, and abhors sin, and that he 
manifests an invariable determination to support the prin- 
ciples of a righteous moral government ? Does it 
not exhibit with tremendous force, the sanctions of the 



137 



law, — that is, the everlasting happiness of the obedient, 
and the everlasting punishment of transgressors ? Is not 
the penalty of the law, as we represent it, awful in the 
highest degree, and so fitted, as far as any thing of the 
nature of penalty can be, to prevent transgression? So far 
as men are to be influenced by fear, will they not be 
prompted to a careful obedience, according to their im- 
pression of the certainty and the greatness of the evil, 
which will be consequent upon sin? In this respect, has not 
the Orthodox system most obviously the advantage over 
its opposite ? Have we not always been reproached by 
those, who would gladly lower down or disannul the sanc- 
tions of the law, for displaying in too strong colors the cer- 
tainty and the dreadfulness of future punishment ? And 
is it not true, that those, who soberly admit the views, 
which we give, of the displeasure of God against sin, 
and the punishment with which he will recompense it, 
find it more difficult, than others, to keep their minds in a 
state of inconsideration, and sinful repose? — I am wil- 
ling to make the appeal to all attentive observers, whe- 
ther there is not, in fact, the greatest and most sensible 
repugnancy between a life of ungodliness, and the rep- 
resentation we make of the divine government ? And, 
in truth, does not this fact account for much of the op- 
position, which our views of religion ha?e always had 
to encounter among men, who are too proud to bear re- 
proof, too fond of quiet, to submit willingly to what 
would disturb and alarm them, and too earthly, to yield 
to the attractions of a devout and spiritual life ? 

That the interests of virtue may be secure* the ex~ 
ercise of mercy towards offenders, whenever it takes place, 
must be so regulated, that the divine law shall be mag- 
nified, and its sanctions exercise all their power over the 
18 



138 



consciences and hearts of men. This is one of the grand 

o 

points in the Orthodox system. I shall not now enter 
on the particulars, which make up the system in this re- 
spect, but shall merely state, what we conceive to be 
fairly its practical result, and on account of which, more 
than for any other reason, we feel so much interest in 
its support. 

According to our views of the intervention of Christ, 
the salvation of sinners reflects no dishonor upon the 
character of God, as a moral Governor. He appears to 
his subjects, as just and true, and awakens as deep an 
awe in their minds, when he forgives, as when he 
punishes. In consequence of this, God's rational crea- 
tures find in his administration as powerful motives to 
deter them from transgression, and induce them to obe- 
dience, as if they saw in fact, that the penalty of the 
law was, in all its dreadfulness, inflicted upon every 
transgressor. So that, while rebels against God are 
pardoned, his law loses none of its authority or influence ; 
the interests of virtue are not sacrificed ; and the glory 
of justice and truth is in no degree tarnished. Nay, 
all the attributes of God acquire the lustre of a higher 
display, and all the principles of his benevolent and 
righteous government, a more powerful ascendency. 
Accordingly, those who are placed under this dispen- 
sation of mercy, are moved to repentance and obedi- 
ence by the high authority of a perfect moral govern- 
ment, and by all the attractions of infinite compassion 
and grace. Thus our system of religion, in regard to 
the work of redemption, is calculated, in our view, to 
promote the cause of holiness in the highest degree. It 
is stamped with perfect holiness throughout. It exhib- 
its a holy God, who is constantly engaged in administer- 
ing a holy government It proclaims a pure and holy 



139 



law, and enforces it with the most weighty sanctions.. 
It brings to our view a holy Redeemer, who gave a per- 
fect vindication and support to that law. It presents a 
holy salvation, to be obtained through the influence of a 
holy Intercessor, and by the persevering efforts of a holy 
faith. Every thing, with which we have to do in this 
great concern, bears the stamp of holiness, and tends 
to promote holiness in us. 

Now tell me candidly, my respected friends, wheth- 
er the system of Orthodoxy, some features of which 
have now been portrayed, is not of as holy a nature, and 
of as purifying a tendency, as the system which Unitari- 
ans adopt ? Do we not exhibit as holy a God, as right- 
eous a law, and as high sanctions to enforce it, as they 
do? Is not the tribunal to which we point men, as just, 
and the sentence, of which we forewarn them, as mo- 
mentous and decisive, as that which Unitarians teach us 
to expect? Do we not hold forth a blessedness of as 
great worth, and a punishment as dreadful, as they ? 

In regard to the work of redemption; does not our 
scheme present as complete a vindication of the violated 
law and government of God, as theirs ? Does it not show 
as much regard to the interests of virtue ? Does it not 
demand holiness with as commanding an authority, and 
allure men to it by as melting a display of kindness ? 
Does it not present as many and as bright examples of 
moral excellence, divine and human? What then is 
wanting to give the religious system, which we embrace, 
the most salutary influence upon the character and con- 
duct of men ? 

As to practical influence, any religious system is, in 
reality, what it is to those who cordially embrace it, 
not what it is, or what it appears to be, to those who re- 
ject it. I doubt not, that a trial of the Orthodox system by 



140 



this rule, would end in its favor. Enlightened Christians, 
who seriously believe this system, do, if I mistake not, 
find in it motives, in great variety, and of powerful effi- 
cacy, to universal holiness. — I should however feel a 
strong reluctance, in reasoning on this subject, to do what 
some writers have done ; that is, to institute a compari- 
son between the Orthodox and Unitarians, in respect of 
character. For although Orthodox believers have, in 
different periods, especially in these last days, achieved 
much for the welfare of man, and have, in many instan- 
ces, exhibited an elevation of christian virtue, which has 
been an honor to the grace of God ; instances enough of 
a contrary character occur, to make us blush ; and even 
those, who have reached the highest point of goodness, 
have fallen far short of the attainments they ought to 
have made, under the influence of such powerful motives. 
Instead, therefore, of making any boasting comparisons, I 
would join with those who are humble and contrite in 
heart, in the deepest lamentations over that astonishing 
perverseness, which counteracts the influence of the most 
holy motives, — over that obstinate disease of our nature, 
which renders the best means of cure in so great a meas- 
ure ineffectual. 

But the fact, that the remedies, which physicians 
apply to the sick, are not always, and in the highest de- 
gree, efficacious, does not prove, that their tendency is not 
salutary, or that there is anv thing more salutary. 

In the case now under consideration, notwithstand- 
ing all the instances, in which the system of the Ortho- 
dox has failed of producing a salutary effect, we are still 
carefully to inquire into the practical tendency of the sys- 
tem, or the moral influence which it is suited to have, and 
in this respect, to compare it with the opposite sys- 
tem. 



141 



[ shall proceed therefore, to the second thing pro- 
posed, — viz., to advert to particular parts of Christian 
virtue, and duty, and to inquire what influence the Or- 
thodox system is likely to have upon them. 

1. Love to God. The more exalted our conceptions 
of his natural and moral attributes, the more likely are 
we, other things being equal, to abound in love. Cer- 
tainly, clear and elevated apprehensions of his glorious 
character have a stronger tendency to excite love, than 
those which are low and obscure. Now it is as evident 
to me, as the light of noon, that the system of Ortho- 
doxy clearly exhibits the perfections of God, and invests 
them with the highest glory. It teaches us to acknowl- 
edge his infallible wisdom, and his unlimited benevolence 
in all his,, works. In view T of all the evils, which fall to 
our lot, or to the lot of others, it teaches us not only to 
submit to his sovereign power, but to admire his pater- 
nal goodness. Those very measures of government, 
which our opponents think irreconcileable with his mo- 
ral perfection, appear to us bright illustrations of it. In 
every point of view, the faith we embrace, is suited to 
excite love to God, and to give to that love the charac- 
ter of constancy and ardor. 

2. Gratitude to God. In proportion to the impres- 
sion we have of his kindness to us, will this affection be 
excited. If we believe that God, from the impulse of 
his own compassion, has bestowed upon us a favor of in- 
finite value, and wholly undeserved; we shall feel a 
stronger motive to gratitude, than if we consider the fa- 
vor bestowed, of inferior value, or suppose that we have 
any personal claim to it. According to this principle, 
those views of redemption, which we have been taught 
to consider, as the dictates of Scripture, are fitted to 



U2 

raise gratitude to the highest pitch. We look upon our- 
selves to be in such a state, in consequence of our apos- 
tacy from God, that it is the greatest achievement of 
infinite benevolence, to save us. We see from what an 
abyss of guilt and wretchedness God delivers, and what 
an exceeding great and eternal weight of glory he be- 
stows. And we see that this deliverance from guilt and 
wretchedness, and this eternal glory were purchased by 
the precious blood of Christ. With these views, we are 
constrained to anticipate that song, which is prompted 
by the gratitude of saints in heaven; " Unto him that 
loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 
— to him be glory and dominion forever and ever." 

With respect to gratitude, it is perfectly easy to 
make a comparison between the influence of o«r system, 
and that of our opponents. Unitarians may gratefully 
acknowledge the goodness of their Creator in forming 
and upholding them, and in the common bounties, with 
which his providence blesses them. They may admire 
his benevolence too, in providing, as they conceive he 
has done, for their happiness in a future state. And 
they may set a high price upon the various means of 
moral improvement, which they enjoy. But their sys- 
tem does not tend like ours, to excite those high and 
tender emotions of gratitude, which spring from a con- 
sciousness of deep criminality and unworthiness. It is easy 
to compare the sensations of a man, who has been res- 
cued from the danger of perishing in the ocean, by some 
heroic effort of benevolence,with the sensations, which are 
produced by the common acts of kindness. It is easy to 
conceive too, how those sensations of the drowning man 
would be heightened, if his deliverance was effected by 
the disinterested kindness of one, whom he had often 



143 



wounded by injuries, and especially, if the danger, from 
which he was rescued, was the immediate consequence 
of an act of unprovoked hostility. Such a generous ef- 
fort of compassion, heightened too by circumstances like 
these, would do all that an act of human kindness could 
do, to turn a heart of stone into a heart of flesh, to call 
forth all the tenderness of gratitude, and to fix a sense 
of obligation, never to be obliterated. 

The principle of this comparison, with respect to the 
excitement of gratitude, is inseparable from our nature ; 
and the result of the comparison will show, that the re- 
ligious sentiments, which we entertain, are adapted not 
only to produce gratitude, but to give it the greatest de- 
gree of strength and tenderness, of which the human 
mind is capable. According to our scheme of faith, we 
are sinners without excuse. We have lifted up our hand 
against our Maker, and in instances too many to be num- 
bered, proved ourselves his enemies. In consequence 
of this, we have brought ourselves upon the brink of 
hopeless destruction. Our Father in heaven has inter- 
posed, and by an act of love, unparalleled in strength and 
purity, and at an expense, which the creation could not 
pay, has delivered us from that hopeless destruction, and 
given us an inheritance in the heavens. Compared with 
this act of divine love, the noblest exploits of benevo- 
lence, ever performed by man, lose all their splendor, 
and all their power to move the heart. The kindness 
and grace of God, exercised towards us in this glorious 
work, will create a holy gratitude, which will swell the 
hearts of the redeemed forever, and transfuse a celestial 
ardor, inexpressibly delightful and pure, into their ever- 
lasting songs. Nor are those, who cordially yield them- 
selves up to the influence of these views, strangers to 



144 



this holy affection, even now. It often glows in the 
heart of the young disciple of Christ. It often cheers 
the spirits of Christians, in every stage of their progress 
towards heaven, and prompts them to bless God 
for his goodness, even in affliction. It kindles a celes- 
tial light in their souls on the bed of languishing ; and in 
the hour of death, it awakens in them sensibilities, which, 
amid the weakness and agonies of dissolving nature, strug- 
gle to utter themselves in, " thanks to God for his un- 
speakable gift." 

3, Love to Christ. The bare mention of this virtue 
will lead at once to the obvious result of the comparison, 
which I have instituted between the two systems. For 
surely that system must be admitted to have the strong- 
est tendency, to excite love to Christ, which ascribes to 
him the highest excellence of character. The different 
systems of Unitarians ascribe to him various degrees of 
created and limited excellence. The Orthodox system 
clothes him with eternal and infinite excellence. Those 
who embrace this system, feel it to be their duty and 
privilege, to love Christ with the most exalted affection, 
— an affection without any limits, except those which 
arise from the finiteness of their capacities. But Unita- 
rianisrn, in every form, forbids this high and unlimited 
affection to Christ. It tells us we are in danger of 
overrating his character. It begets a fear of regarding 
him with too high a veneration. When we have hearts, 
which wish to express their sacred ardor in the adoring 
language of Thomas, " my Lord and my God ;" it thrusts 
itself before us, and tells us to forbear. Whereas the 
system of Orthodoxy calls us to raise our love to Christ 
to a higher and higher degree. It tells us he has an 
excellence and glory, which our affection can never reach. 
It makes our blessedness in a future world to consist 



145 



very much in clearer discoveries of his divine perfections^ 
and in exercising towards him a more exalted, more un- 
interrupted love. 

4. Faith in Christ. The same general remarks ap- 
ply to this point, as to the last. Believing or trusting in 
the Savior is represented, as one of the grand, compre- 
hensive duties of the Christian religion. But surely that 
faith or trust in Christ, which results from the princi- 
ples of our opponents, must be a very different thing, 
from that which our system inculcates. Under the in- 
fluence of the doctrines which we believe, we repose a 
confidence in his atoning blood, which relieves us from 
the agitations of guilt, and inspires us with humble, joy- 
ful hope ; a confidence in his power, and wisdom, and 
goodness, which puts our hearts at rest respecting the 
most important concerns of the creation. Our own in- 
terests, temporal and eternal, we commit, cheerfully and 
entirely, to his care. We trust in him for all that is 
necessary to purify our hearts, to guide and protect us 
during our pilgrimage, to comfort us in affliction, and to 
give us peace and triumph in the prospect of death. 
And when the time of our departure draws near, we 
hope to look up to our merciful, condescending Redeem- 
er, and, with that confidence in his infinite grace, which 
quells every fear, to say, " Lord Jesus, receive my Spirit." 
— Does the Unitarian system teach any thing like this? 
Does such a faith spring from the principles, which it 
inculcates ? 

5. Dread of sin, and watchful care to obey the divine 
precepts. 

The importance of the doctrine of rewards and pun- 
ishments is insisted on by Unitarians, as well as by the 
Orthodox. The question is, does their scheme, or ours, 
exhibit the doctrine in the form best adapted to impress 



146 



men with a dread of sin, and excite them to obej the 
divine precepts ? Now I think it must be obvious to 
those, who are acquainted with the most respectable au- 
thors on both sides, that the heaven which we are taught 
by our system to contemplate, is a state of higher per- 
fection, and of purer and more elevated enjoyment, than 
that, which our opponents describe. Unitarian authors 
represent the future condition of Christians, as being much 
less removed from their present condition, than what we 
suppose to be fact. Accordingly they look upon us, in 
relation to this subject, as overstepping the bounds of 
sober truth, and attempting to set off the joys of heaven 
with too high colors. Read what they have written on 
this subject, and you will be satisfied, that, the views 
they exhibit of the heavenly felicity, are less adapted to 
excite a deep interest in the mind of man, and less adapt- 
ed to sway his active powers, than those which are ex- 
hibited by the best writers on the other side. If this 
is in fact so, then, whatever may be said as to reason 
and argument in the case, the Orthodox system has cer- 
tainly the advantage, as to moral influence. For the con- 
templation of a future reward, to be obtained by virtu- 
ous efforts, must evidently tend to excite those efforts, 
very much in proportion to the greatness and excel- 
lence of that reward. 

If any hesitate to admit what I have advanced on 
this part of the subject, I will not stop to contest the 
point, but pass to the consideration of future punishment, 
on which our reasoning can be attended with no difficulty. 
Here my first inquiry is,— does the threat of punishment 
tend to deter men from sin ? is the penalty of any law, di- 
vine or human, fitted to have an influence to prevent 
transgression? If so, it must be by moving the passion of 
fear. The evil threatened is addressed to this passion. 



147 



and can produce an effect upon no other principle of 
action. The next question is, whether the prospect of 
an evil, that is great and insupportable, has a tendency 
to excite a stronger sensation of fear, than the prospect 
of an evil, comparatively small and easily endured ? I 
appeal to common sense. I appeal to common practice. 
When legislators find, that the penalty of any law does 
not work upon the fears of men powerfully enough 
to prevent the commission of crimes, they increase 
its severity. And this they do upon the general 
principle, that the penalty of a law will be likely to 
awaken the fears of men, and influence their conduct, 
other things being equal, very much in proportion to the 
greatness of the evil, involved in that penalty. Upon 
this obvious principle, I wish you to examine the practi- 
cal tendency of our doctrine respecting future pun- 
ishment. We believe that the future punishment of the 
wicked will be inexpressibly great, and will endure forever. 
We bring that great and endless punishment into view, 
in order to illustrate the evil of sin, and the displeasure 
of God against it. We believe that such a punishment 
is just ; that it is no more than commensurate with the 
illdesert of sin ; and that it shows no more displeasure 
against sin, than is necessarily prompted by the perfect 
love which the King Eternal feels for the welfare of his 
kingdom. Now will not any man be powerfully held 
back from the commission of sin, by the serious appre- 
hension, that it is a great evil, that God is greatly dis- 
pleased with it, that it tends to produce extensive injury 
to the creation, and that it will be followed with inexpres- 
sible and hopeless misery ? If you would weaken the 
power, which hinders a man from sin, weaken his appre- 
hension of the greatness of the evil of it ; weaken his ap- 
prehension of the displeasure of God against it, and of 



148 



the dreadfulness and the duration of the misery to which 
it will lead. Now is not this what the system of Unita- 
rians actually does, so far as it opposes the views of the 
Orthodox respecting future punishment ? I have noth- 
ing to say here, as to the arguments used on one side or 
the other. I speak simply, as to practical tendency. 
And I am not anxious what conclusions any man will 
adopt, who will allow himself, on rational principles, so- 
berly to investigate the two systems under consideration. 

I might say, were it necessary, that the powerful in- 
fluence of the doctrine of future punishment, as we hold 
it, is illustrated by numberless facts. Men strongly in- 
clined or tempted to sin, have been deterred from the 
commission of it, by the fear of endless punishment. By 
the same fear, many have been roused from spiritual 
lethargy, and excited to make that most important in- 
quiry, " what shall we do to be saved ?" How many 
have been excited by this doctrine, to such reflections 
as these ;— w is that sin, which I indulge in my heart, so 
great an evil in the sight of a just and benevolent God, 
that he has threatened everlasting punishment, as its re- 
compense ? Ami, while impenitent, exposed to that 
recompense ? And shall I, by the momentary pleasures of 
sin, bring hopeless ruin upon my immortal soul ?" — Such 
reflections as these, naturally occasioned by the doctrine 
of endless punishment, have, in instances too many to be 
enumerated, led, through the mercy of God, to a tho- 
rough reformation of character. 

6. Reverence for the word of God. The grand maxim 
of the Polish Socinians was, that reason is our ultimate 
rule and standard, and that whatever in religion is not 
conformed to this, is to be rejected. This maxim, as 
they understood it, gave them perfect liberty to alter 
*>r set aside the obvious sense of the Bible, whenever it 



149 



did not agree with the deductions of reason. Unitarians 
in general have, with more or less decision, adopted the 
same maxim. I do not say, that all, who are called Uni- 
tarians in New England, treat the word of God with 
the same irreverent license, which some English and 
German Unitarians have shown. But I think no candid 
and competent judge can doubt, that the general aspect 
of Unitarianism does less honor to revelation, than the 
contrary system. Unitarianism bows with less veneration 
to the word of God, and receives its instructions with a 
less implicit confidence. It has lower views of the na- 
ture and degree of that inspiration, which the writers 
of Scripture enjoyed, and is proportionably less inclined 
to receive their word, as infallible. In forming our opin- 
ions, we inquire simply, what saith the Scripture ? and 
what was the sense, which the inspired writers meant to con- 
vey ? When we learn this, we are satisfied. Our rea- 
son receives its doctrines from the word of God. It sees 
the objects of religion, not in its own light, but in a light 
borrowed from revelation. As soon as our reason dis- 
covers what God teaches, we suffer it to go no farther. 
The Bible, we believe, contains a harmonious system of 
truth, eternal truth, unmixed with error. If our reason 
seems to see inconsistencies, we charge not the appear- 
ance of those inconsistencies to any fault in the Scrip- 
tures, but to the weakness and obscurity of reason, and 
we have no doubt it will entirely vanish, when our reason 
acquires a higher degree of improvement. I must re- 
fer it to the christian public to determine, whether Uni- 
tarianism teaches its disciples to treat the word of God 
with this kind of reverence and submission. 

Our system gives us liberty to pass over no part of 
Scripture, as unworthy of regard. What is said on one 
part of a subject, we charge ourselves to receive with as 



150 



much confidence, as what is said on another part ; and 
what is opposed to our prepossessions, as readily, as what 
is agreeable to them. I might show this to be our prac- 
tice, with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, the mo- 
ral corruption of man, the divine purposes, and the di- 
vine agency. But, in my apprehension, the Unitarian 
theory is so constructed, as to set aside one part of Scrip- 
ture entirely. That is to say, the faith of Unitarians, 
certainly of that class of them, who believe in the sim- 
ple humanity of Christ, is the same, as it would be, if 
those texts, which ascribe the highest perfections to 
Christ, were expunged from the Bible. There are texts, 
which assert that the Word was God, — that all things 
were made by him and for him, — that he is over all, 
God blessed forever. But these texts, and others of 
similar import, make no alteration in the faith of So- 
cinians. Their opinions are founded on other represen- 
tations of the Scriptures exclusively. These texts have 
no influence at all upon them. The Orthodox have a 
belief in the inspiration and authority of the Bible, which 
prevents them from treating any part of it in this man- 
ner. If the Bible teaches, that Christ is a man, they 
believe he is a man. If the Bible teaches, that he is di- 
vine, they believe he is divine. If it teaches, that he 
created all things, they believe it. If it teaches, that he 
prayed to the Father, that he suffered, and died, and 
rose from the dead, they receive all this as a matter of 
fact. So of the rest. Whatever the Bible declares re- 
specting Christ, they regard as infallible truth. They 
extend the limits of their faith far enough to comprise 
all parts of the testimony of God. They do not come 
to the Bible with such a bias of mind, that, if they be- 
lieve Christ to be man, they will believe this only, and 
whatever the Bible may say, will not believe that he is 



151 



also God; or that, if they believe the divine unity, 
they will believe this only, and whatever the Bible 
may say, will not believe a divine Trinity. They 
have such liberality of faith, that, on the simple au- 
thority of God's word, they will believe both. I 
mention this merely to show, that their system, or 
their habit of thinking, leads them to entertain so pro- 
found a reverence for the Bible, that, as soon as they 
know what it declares, they are satisfied. They suffer 
not their reason to set itself up, and claim authority, as 
a teacher, or guide ; but require it to submit to the au- 
thority of Revelation, and to exercise itself only to re- 
ceive instruction from God, with the humble docility of 
a child. Now even admitting, that the system of the 
Orthodox contains a mixture of error, it is very appar- 
ent, that they have made it what it is, from sincere rev- 
erence for the word of God. The high authority and in- 
fallible truth of the Scriptures, is the principle, which 
controls their reasoning and their faith. 

I could extend these remarks, and show, that on the 
subject of man's moral depravity, the atonement, regen- 
eration, and other controverted points, the reasoning of 
Unitarians manifests less reverence for the word of God, 
than that of their opponents. I could illustrate this, as 
before, by the simple fact, that there are many passa- 
ges ©f the Bible, which the writers seem to have thought 
very important, which yet are of no account with Unitari- 
ans, and have no influence whatever upon their faith. 
It would be easy for Unitarians themselves, by a little 
inquiry, to perceive, that their faith would be just what 
it now is, were the texts referred to, erased from the 
sacred pages. All the effect, produced upon their minds 
by any one of those texts, is, to occasion them perplexi- 
ty and trouble, and to put them to the wearisome labor of 



152 



explaining away its obvious sense, and making it appear 
consistent with their views. 

J might cite many observations of English and Ger- 
man Unitarians, expressive of their low ideas of inspira- 
tion, and their want of reverence for the word of God. 
But I intended merely to direct the eye of the reader to 
what seems to me exceedingly obvious, and lead him to 
inquire, whether the general aspect of the system em- 
braced by Unitarians, and the general style of their rea- 
soning on religious subjects, is not indicative of less rev- 
erence for the sacred oracles, than what is manifested 
by the Orthodox. But whether the result of a compar- 
ison be or be not the same in their minds, as it is in 
mine ; the uniform declarations and conduct of the Or- 
thodox, and the general character of their writings, will, 
I hope, leave no man in doubt, as to the reverence 
which they entertain for the word of God, or as to the 
tendency of their system of religion to promote such 
reverence. 

7. Let us finally consider the subject, in relation to 
benevolent action^ particularly that highest kind of it, 
which is directed to the spread of the gospel, and the sal- 
vation of men. 

The views, which our religious system exhibits of 
the eternal love of God, and especially of the condescen- 
sion and grace of Jesus Christ, have a manifest ten- 
dency to beget the sincerest and most active kindness 
towards mankind. Under the influence of such exam- 
ples of goodness, as we are taught to contemplate in the 
providence of God, and in the life of Jesus, we cannot 
be indifferent to the wants, or the sufferings of our fel- 
low creatures. 

But the grand influence of Orthodoxy relates direct- 
ly to the spiritual and eternal condition of men. We 



153 



believe, — and it is a distinguishing mark of our religion,— 
that the world lieth in wickedness ; that all men are the 
subjects of a total alienation of heart from God, and just- 
ly exposed to everlasting punishment. This view of 
mankind, especially when we look upon ourselves as part- 
ners with them in the same guilt and ruin, must produce 
the tenderest emotions of sympathy. And when with a 
temper of mind, which is in any measure what it ought 
to be, we consider their moral degradation and misery 
in connexion with that grace of God, which has provid- 
ed salvation ; how deeply must we be affected ; and 
how powerfully must we be stirred up to benevolent ex- 
ertion in their behalf. Look abroad into various quar- 
ters of the world, where mankind are in a state of the 
profoundest ignorance and wretchedness, and see the 
efforts which are made for their reformation, and their 
happiness. Then look into Christian nations, and see, 
who are the most active in promoting these benevolent 
efforts. See what is the spring of all these remarkable 
movements, which really present the only prospect we 
have, of the salvation of the world. What is it that 
rouses the exertions of those, who are giving their 
substance or offering their prayers, or of those, who 
are exposing themselves to hardships, and suffering 
and death, in the cause of human happiness ? 'Tis sim- 
ply this. They see that the children of men have de- 
stroyed themselves ; that their immortal souls are ready 
to perish. This touches the pity of their hearts, and 
kindles all the fervor of benevolent desire. They see 
that a Savior is provided, and that self-ruined sinners may 
obtain eternal life. This awakens their hope, their zeal, 
and their efforts. The reason they have to expect, that 
the grace of God will abound in the salvation of sinners 5 

gives them alacrity and patience in their labors. If souls, 
20 



154 



precious as their own, and equally the objects of the 
mercy which the gospel proffers, may obtain the salva- 
tion, which is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory ; they 
have a reward like that, which Jesus himself enjoys, 
when he sees the travail of his soul, and is satisfied. I 
say then, that the doctrine of the utter ruin of man, and 
of the grace of God which bringeth salvation, is the spring 
of those animated exertions for the good of the world, 
which mark the present era. 

To try the natural tendency of the doctrine of man's 
depravity, and his redemption by Christ, as we hold it, 
I will suppose the following case. — There is a certain 
Unitarian, who, though a very benevolent man, yet, with 
his present views of religion, makes no particular exer- 
tions, by the contribution of money, or by personal labors, 
for the conversion of sinners, either at home, or abroad. 
He is content that men in Christian and in heathen lands 
should remain as they are, except what may be done 
for them by the gradual progress of knowledge, and the 
arts of civilized life. But this same Unitarian alters his 
religious opinions, and becomes well satisfied, that man- 
kind are, every where, in that very state of moral cor- 
ruption and ruin, which the Orthodox system asserts, 
and that just such a salvation is provided, and may be 
obtained in just such a way, as that system teaches. Of 
this he becomes deeply convinced. What will be the 
consequence ? Will not his heart be touched with com- 
passion for sinners ? Will he not long to see the grace 
of God displayed in their conversion? Will he not join 
himself to the company of those, who are laboring and 
praying and giving of their substance, for the salvation of 
those, who are perishing ? Is not this the natural con- 
sequence of such a change in his religious views? Do 
not facts, as well as the nature of the case, show it to be 
so ? 



155 



Now invert the supposition. — A man, who feelingly 
embraces the common Orthodox system, and who is led, 
by his views of the ruined, miserable condition of the 
human race, to unite with those, who show the highest 
degree of zeal in promoting the conversion of sinners at 
home, and in sending the gospel to the heathen ; — such 
a man changes his faith, and comes to entertain the 
views of Unitarians, respecting the state and the pros- 
pects of human beings. Is not his zeal for the conver- 
sion of sinners, and for evangelizing the heathen, extin- 
guished ? And does he not forsake the society of those, 
who are active in promoting the benevolent enterprises 
of this auspicious day ? Do not facts, as well as the na- 
ture of the case, show this to be the natural consequence 
of such a change in his opinions ?— Unitarians, as it seems 
to me, act with perfect self-consistency on this subject. 
Their opinions and their practice correspond ; and with 
the sentiments they now indulge respecting the nature 
of the gospel, and the character and condition of man, 
what powerful motives can they have to labor, or make 
sacrifices for the conversion of sinners ? Have we any 
reason to expect, that Unitarians will so far imitate the ho- 
ly Apostles, as to become preachers of the gospel among 
the heathen, and to be willing to spend and be spent, to suf- 
fer persecution, and to die, in the cause of human salva- 
tion ? Possibly they may be accessible to the influence 
of motives, which we have not duly considered. If we 
are chargeable with a mistake, or with ignorance, on 
this subject, or if we indulge views, which can be con- 
sidered, as in any measure unjust or injurious, we must 
refer to the writings and the conduct of Unitarians, as 
our apology. What exertions have they made to pro- 
mote the spread of the gospel in pagan lands ? What 
heathen tribes or nations are now receiving the words of 
eternal life from their missionaries, or experiencing, in 



♦ 



156 

other ways, the salutary effects of their religious chari- 
ties, and their prayers ? — For myself, I know not how 
it is, that any, who have a heart to feel for the woes, or 
to desire the eternal happiness of man, can be indiffer- 
ent to the benevolent operations of this day, in behalf of 
those who are destitute of the gospel. But are not Uni- 
tarians, generally, chargeable with this indifference ? Are 
they not chargeable with more than indifference? Instead 
of uniting with the multitude of good men, who devote 
themselves to works of Christian benevolence ; do they 
not look with pity or contempt, upon the most fervent 
prayers, and the most earnest, faithful, and successful 
labors of the church of Christ, in the cause of human 
salvation ? And is not all this a dark and forbidding 
characteristic of their system ? 

The views I have expressed, as to the practical ten- 
dency of Orthodoxy and of Unitarianism, are such, I ap- 
prehend, as must result from a due consideration of the 
character of these two systems. — I am aware it may be 
difficult for those, whose minds have strong preposses- 
sions against Orthodoxy, to conceive that it should pro- 
duce such effects, as I have ascribed to it. But certain- 
ly such effects do naturally result from it, as it is under- 
stood and embraced by the Orthodox. Such must be 
my apprehension, till some one shall take the doctrines 
of Orthodoxy, just as we hold them, not as represented 
by our opponents, and make out, by fair reasoning, that 
they have an opposite tendency. 

I intended to proceed farther under this general 
head, and to consider the tendency of our religious sys- 
tem, compared with the opposite one, to promote a spir- 
it of humility, and of prayer. But it will be perfectly 
easy for the reader to apply to each of these subjects 
the principles, which have been applied to the other 
subjects, treated in this Letter. 



157 



I shall now finish what 1 have to say on the impor- 
tant subject of practical influence, by one remark; name- 
ly ; that the advantage, which the Author of the Ser- 
mon has, in setting forth the practical influence of Uni- 
tarianism, is derived, almost entirely, from those views 
of religion, which really belong to the Orthodox. These, 
generally, are the views, which he makes prominent in 
his Discourse, and by which he gives plausibility to his 
system. I leave the propriety of this mode of treating 
the subject, to the consideration of others. — To those 
of my readers, who understand thoroughly what the 
Unitarian scheme is, I must also refer the decision of 
another question ; that is ; whether this Author has not, 
in some instances, been silent respecting certain opinions, 
which are common among Unitarians, when the impor- 
tance of those opinions, as well as the express design of 
his Sermon, required him to speak of them without re- 
serve. If, on every important topic, he has been per- 
fectly explicit in giving his ow, views ; it must be that 
he differs very widely in opinion from the generality of 
Unitarians. And if so, then I should doubt, whether 
some man, who was of the same mind with them, 
might not have been more properly employed, as their 
agent and representative before the public. Though 
he may have given a true and unreserved account of his 
own religious faith, I cannot think he has given a just 
account of the general faith of those, for whom he un- 
dertakes to speak. Thus in my apprehension, he fails 
essentially as to both systems. As to Orthodoxy, he 
does not show a feature of it in its true light. What he 
has written would enable no man on earth correctly to 
understand any one article of our faith. As to Unitari- 
anism, — I think he has as really failed of giving a just 
and complete account of it, though not in the same way, 
nor in an equal degree, 



158 



Although I have, in these Letters, spoken frequently 
of the injustice, which the Orthodox have been accus- 
tomed to suffer from their opposers, I would not have 
you imagine that I have meant to complain of any per- 
sonal injuries, or wished to excite feelings of commisera- 
tion towards the Orthodox. I have complained of injus- 
tice in the treatment, which our religious faith has re- 
ceived from our opponents, because it tends to bar their 
minds and the minds of others, against the most salutary 
truths, and to perpetuate the evils of controversy. 

I am conscious of no disposition and of no tempta- 
tion, to reproach or injure those, whom I have here ad- 
dressed. On the contrary, I have strong inducements to 
respect and honor them, — especially those of them, who 
were among my beloved Instructors and fellow students 
at the University, and many others, to whom I have par- 
ticular personal attachments. But 1 have wished to 
cherish the influence of still higher motives, toward 
those, from whose religious opinions I dissent. I would 
regard them, as fellow creatures, whom God requires 
me to love, as I love myself, — who are destined to the 
same immortal existence, and capable of the same im- 
mortal joys with myself, — who are to appear, a few days 
hence, before the same high and holy tribunal, and whose 
final sentence is to come from the lips of the same infal- 
lible Judge. Under the influence of these considerations, 
suffer me to say, I have found it easy, not only to guard 
my mind against every feeling of animosity, but to exer- 
cise love and tenderness. In executing the business, 
which I am now closing, I have charged myself, first, to do 
as much as possible, to promote the cause of Christ ; and 
then, as little as possible, to inflict a wound upon the 
feelings of my opponents. Indeed I have written with 
the desire and the hope of contributing, through di- 
vine mercy, to their eternal welfare. — I have also endeav- 



159 



ored to keep in mind, that the feelings, which are apt 
to agitate the minds of contending parties, will shortly 
vanish, and that the controversy, which has made its 
way into New England, and the conduct of all those, 
who take a part in it, must be subjected to review, be- 
fore Him, who cannot err. 

And now, my respected friends, I desire freely and 
affectionately to inquire, what Unitarians expect to gain, 
by the efforts they are making in their pamphlets, peri- 
odical publications, and sermons, to disseminate the pe- 
culiarities of their religious system ? Do they expect 
that Unitarianism will have a more powerful influence 
to promote good morals in society, or that it will produce 
better men, or better civil and literary institutions, than 
that religion, which brought our forefathers to New Eng- 
land, and which has given to all our institutions, to our 
ministers and churches, to our rulers, and to our com- 
munity at large, a character of preeminence, which has 
been universally seen and acknowledged among us ? As 
to this subject of practical influence, our system most 
evidently possesses every thing which is valuable in that 
of Unitarians. Whatever motives to goodness can be 
drawn from the <fc paternal character of God," or from 
any of his moral attributes, from the " loveliness and 
sublimity of virtue," from the example of Christ, from the 
precepts of the Gospel, or from the doctrine of a resur- 
rection, and a future state of retribution ; our system 
inculcates them at least as forcibly; and turns them to 
as good account, as that of our opponents. And our 
system has much in addition, which we consider of infi- 
nite worth, but of which theirs is wholly destitute. I 
ask then, what they expect to gain by the efforts they 
are making, — which are, in reality, efforts to diffuse among 
men, lower conceptions of the glory of Christ, and of the 
honor due to him from his people,~lower conceptions 



160 

of the disorder of the human mind, and of the evil of 
sin, — -lower conceptions of the value of Christ's atone- 
ment, and of the necessity and worth of divine influence 
to renew men to holiness, — lower conceptions of the 
recompense, which sinners deserve, and of the obligations 
of those who- are pardoned, to the grace of God ? Let 
the thing be varnished over ever so artfully, this is the 
real tendency of their efforts. And what good to them- 
selves or to others do they expect from such efforts? 
Why should they wish to promote a system, which 
lets down the standard of Christianity, so that it meets, 
half way at least, the wishes of the irreligious ; — a sys- 
tem, which does, in fact, find a place in the hearts of 
those, who are living to the present world, without giv- 
ing them any disquietude, and which is likely to be em- 
braced by thousands, in preference to the opposite, for 
the very reason, that it relieves them from being dis- 
turbed by the warnings of conscience, and allows them 
to live in the neglect of those things which are unseen 
and eternal ; — a system, which never can coalesce with 
the feelings of those, whose hearts are warm with be- 
nevolence to the souls of men, and with zeal for their 
conversion ; — a system, which, if it should prevail, would 
prevent forever the pious efforts, which our blessed 
• Lord and Redeemer requires his followers to make, to 
convey the gospel of peace to the ends of the world ? 
This general aspect of Unitarianism appears very por- 
tentous. It excites my fears. And it is sufficient, by it- 
self, to produce in my mind an honest and serious ap- 
prehension, that whatever plausible arguments may be 
used to give the system support and currency, — it is 
indeed another gospel 




'JRl*' ^/ 'Jill' 



vlHP,** °»^^«* \lSp," 




1 - 



•b1? 



f • 4 o * iP^UsP*^ * Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process, ■ 

\ ^» *<v "^Si^^* Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
^» Treatment Date: May 2006 



» * * <£2%rnMF'* V ^UW§§^> » rMeuxraiizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

Hi ^ ^ ^, h , Treatment Date: May 2006 

^ v- a? PreservationTechnoiogies 

l r *J^lSB»t* ^ 1& * « A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

' * lyWEWW} 0 *V*<V • «• v?*^ • 111 Thomson Park Drive 

» V>$sj£j52s£? * * ^J^na^cS * * Cranberry Township, PA 16066 

Hi * WkKBfZ? * 6 wWr,* Ov V %^ J (724)779 2111 



H K 
?4 



/ S&tic\ / fife* 0 * 




t *>„J .'.sib* ^« < 



V 



• » o 





** v % 

s s<mk'%, ^**m>y* /s^k*% 




MAR 82 



N. MANCHESTER, 
INDIANA 46962 




